Slashdot Mirror
Public Filtering Comin' Like a Freight Train
MSNBC has a
good story
about the filtering bill which will almost certainly soon pass.
"It's curious that Republicans - typically fans of decentralized
government - would be interested in this bill, which puts an
educational decision into the hands of the federal government, a power
that typically rests in the hands of the locals. It would essentially
hold schools and libraries that use subsidies to get online (25,000 to
date, according to the Web site of the company that runs the program
for the government) hostage to the notion that filtering weeds out all
evil on the Net."
Well said. Welcome to the 21st century, where all public institutions will be censored by unaccountable corporations.
1. the language is English.
2. cacucasian porn is involved (for the "certain color range in images" filtering).
3. you use a grammar/syntax language engine to parse what's coming down the pipe to decide if it's insidious or not.
Until then, what gets filtered is what goes against someone's political agenda.
All bitching about repeat stories aside, though, it is interesting to note that the Christian Coalition and other right-wing pressure groups actually oppose this bill. Nobody wants this - the nimrods who sponsored this rider want it vetoed so they can blame Clinton (and by extension, Gore) for a government shutdown.
It will probably have minimal impact on the election, though, and this piece of shit won't survive ten minutes of court review. So in the end, it probably won't mean much, but it really chaps my ass that the people who are supposed to be representing my interests have nothing better to do.
Anyone interested in going in together on an island and seceding, drop me a line.
OK,
- B
http://www.bradheintz.com/
- updated
Given the availability of home computers, I think most porn surfers are going to do it at home, or at the friends' house where there is a computer.
I think it's like kids playing with guns. You may not own one, but the neighbor's kid always does.
Teach your kid good values, and you won't have to worry. As much.
Of course, your opinion only holds true if the Supreme Court is similarly configured, compared to today's Court, when this issue comes before them. If the next President's appointments bias the court toward Right-wing interpretations then this filtering bill may be upheld.
They have the ability to LOCALly block "the porn and pro-marijuana sites." This wouldn't shut the sites down, it would just prevent access.
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson
Politicians are always ranting about the World Wide Web...problem is, they forget the first two words..."WORLD WIDE".
:), as well as many gambling sites, radicals, "How to make a nuclear weapon", etc., are located OUTSIDE the US.
.nl!"
/. READERS! Link may not be available after a few days. You've been warned.)
For some reason, they don't realize that a ton of pr0n sites (and some of the best ones, in my book
For example...
US Government: "Hey, Holland! Shut down all the porn and pro-marijuana sites that end in
Dutch: "You're fooking kidding, right?"
The US has no jurisdiction over overseas sites, and better not try to pull any stunts to usurp power to do so ("Pull thehun.net or no more automobiles for you!")
And one more point...let's see the filters extract this link (WARNING! LINK CONTAINS EXPLICIT ASCII-ART! NOT SUITABLE FOR 90% OF
DrQu+xum: Proof that the lameness filter doesn't work.
Think about all of those people who can't afford a home computer, and must get their porn using public infrastructure, such as the public library or a school. They need access to good quality porn, and that's the only way they can get it.
As a parent, I at first had some real trouble with this issue. I would not let my child surf the net totally unsupervised at home. I don't want him meeting pedophiles in chat rooms or (much more likely) seeing pictures of Cartman's mom in a german schiza mpeg. So why would I want him to be able to see that kind of stuff unsupervised at the library? Filtering sounds so great in theory: keep out the bad stuff, but let the good stuff through automatically!
The problem is that the implementation can't match the promise. Filtering software lets tons of "bad" stuff through. Having it there doesn't keep pornography out. It only keeps some pornography out. So it really only gives parents a false sense of security. If I didn't understand the limitations of the software, I might let my kid go to the library and surf to his heart's content, not realizing that he still has access to a lot of stuff I don't want him to see. I have to be prepared for the fact that he may be viewing stuff I don't approve of at the library, whether it has software filters or not. I have to have the same vigilance that I have when he visits friends. I have to spend time with my kid, make sure we have open communication, and that he feels he can discuss difficult subjects with me. It puts a burden on me to be a good parent.
And then there is the issue of who decides what is "bad". It's been shown, by groups like peacefire, that filtering software blocks a lot of stuff it shouldn't. It blocks health sites, political sites, sites of people or places whose names sounds dirty (like Cockburn, or Middlesex), sites of people who are critical of the filtering software company. Looking at the whole package, the problems outweigh the benefits.
Don't forget that Friday is Hawaiian shirt day.
Now, as this is a big huge 1st Amendment issue, I fully expect someone to contest the case, whether the ACLU, EFF, or the various schools/libraries organizations around the country. And I really don't think that this case , as it stands, will hold up in the Supreme Court. Filtering technology as it is right now is a violation of free speech, and either the SC will nix the law, or force the development of better filtering software that actually *does* the job that is should do. If filters had a 99.999+% hit rate, and less than 0.001% failure rate using sites that, as deemed by the community, are either appropriate or inappropriate, then I would not have many qualms about using them at public terminals. But as with any first amendment challenge, one has to be careful to make sure this goes no farther than public terminals.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
Dutch: "You're fooking kidding, right?"
True, but I just read this. So much for the idea that American laws hold no water in other countries. Our corporate government will find any way to push itself on other countries when money is involved, it seems...
Shameless plug: That's why I'm voting Nader!
-------
We want some answers and all that we get
Some kind of shit about a terrorist threat
- Ministry
I see nothing wrong with the Filtering Bill, it's just more help for baby sitters
Unsubscribe