Slashdot Mirror
Stupid Censorship, Stupid Security
The
2003 Jefferson Muzzle
"winners" are out. This year's crop starts with John Ashcroft and the U.S. Congress, and works its way down through the school board that voted to put Harry Potter on the restricted shelf. Innovation in censorship deserves recognition, read and enjoy. And in other stupid news,
the winners of the
Stupid Security Competition
have been announced. I like that I'm being protected from tea. It makes me feel safe.
the problem with censoring data is that - if you aim to remove access to offending data - there is no end to it. there will always be people who get offended at anything.
for example the harry potter book burning event was just plain stupid. it is just a kids story (good though) and if your belief system is so fragile that you have to protect it by removing access to all data that you find not suitable, you have a problem.
in my experience if people prevent other people asking questions, than that means that that you are not too sure about your answers to those questions.
int.
One of my favorite saying is "Information is not bad, it is the is the holding of information that is bad". The idea that you are protecting a child from harm it unfounded. The only reason Censorship is around is cuz of Right Wing, conservatives are afraid of change. God forbid a child read a book about a kid who can make things float. Censorship is really about control, someone had decided that an idea should not be shared with other people and thus they take it upon them selves to control that idea. An idea could be anything, a book, a word, a movie, etc,. I am a firm believer that Censorship in any form is bad and hinders creativity. The DMCA is one of the biggest acts of Censorship I've ever seen. "NOPE! This here DMCA cays you can't publish that report about anti-copy protection!" common guys, step out of the box for a sec and look at with relevance Censorship has. and i'll tell you, it has none
Google doesn't index user sigs, so stop trying to "Google Bomb" with them.
if I am not mistaken, our government is our fellow man, atleast here in the USA.
Great Linux Site
Geez, then where do they put books like American Psycho (Bret Easton Ellis) ? On the secret underground cellar police-protected shelf ? In the porn section ?
theefer
from the Ashcroft article:
"Allowing $8,000 in tax dollars to be spent on drapes to conceal two semi-nude statues that often appeared behind the attorney general during press conferences in the Great Hall of the Department of Justice. Ironically, the two statues represent "The Spirit of Justice" and "The Majesty of Law."
Ironic indeed, in fact most telling.
Ashcroft in his post 9/11 reign of the DOJ has done more to hide the doings of the DOJ and execution of it's commandments from the public than any other Attorney General in our nations history.
Being that he is the mind behind "secret search warrants", "secret evidence" and "secret imprisonment", it is quite fitting that he display this by making the representitive figures of his office "secret" as well.
Do the rest of us a favor who do not see an FBI agent around every corner, stop calling every administrative attempt to restrict a display of objectional art to children censorship.
Whether this organization agrees with it or not parents and citizens have a right to restict objectional art from being displayed using publicly funded means, every bit as much as the artists have in producing then getting publishers to distribute and/or display their garbage.
Dawn of the Dead
Can someone explain how this example constitutes censorship? From what I read, this incident was completely blown out of proportion. It wasn't because he wanted to cover up the statues, it was to provide a better backdrop for the cameras.
Using this as an example of "censorship" or to say that free expression has been muzzled is a little dubious. It puts the whole list into question of the motives and partisanship behind making it.
But of course it makes slashdot because it fits with their worldview.
SIG:Slashdot: indymedia for nerds.
...a certain online service implemented filters in its user registration process. People with last names like Petit or Snodgrass, and people who lived in cities with names like Scunthorpe or Middlesex, were prohibited from signing up for the service! The filters are implemented elsewhere too, one of AOL's remote employees couldn't enter his last name, Kuntz, into his online profile. Way to lose revenue.
Or are you thinking at all? What the heck do you think censorship is except filtering? Jazus keerist, when the public institution makes the decision on what can be seen and what can't, that is censorship.
What looney bin do you pull your definitions from?
Infuriate left and right
Is ironic that most of the measures assumed that the terrorist are dumb and use always the same method or container for what they will do, not changing a bit their habits (puting bombs in backpacks instead of big, uncontrolled bags?) showing that the real dumbs are in the controlling points, and that the more effective measure of terrorism is letting the same dumb people to do his job, with that is enough.
Substitute for Harry Potter: The Adventures Of Huckleberry Finn, Catcher In The Rye, Brave New World, or The Lord Of The Rings. All beloved books that have been censored at times. The story repeats itself because people continue to hold to belief systems that demand blind, ignorant devotion. Faith is fine, devotion is fine. But not blindly. Not without thought.
barzelay.net
did anyone else notice that there were a disproportionate number of awards going to institutions of learning? namely, school districts including middle schools and high schools?
i don't know about anyone else, but this is a scary proposition for me. schools trying to prohibit the dissemination of information about different cultures and schools of thought speaks volumes about the types of people that are educating our young people. if i let my kids in the future go through a given school system, i want availble to them a variety of vantage points, not just the "right one" as prescribed by the administration.
Help! Help! I'm bein' repressed!
Just one example: San Fransisco's subway system BART is criticized for closing their public restrooms. In Washington DC the subway systems was designed 20 years or so ago without public restrooms in the first place. It is in fact hard to find a spot in the DC subway system where you are not under the watchfull eye of a video camera, all being monitored by at least one attendant visible to the public (I think the feeds go to a central location as well). Since they don't put subway stops in deserted parts of the city, this is hardly a major inconvenience. You simply visit a public restroom before you enter the station.
I can't think of any security measures anywhere that don't have at least one of the following problems:
The awards seem to include examples of all three. When I have talked to people who complain about various security measures I try to come up with scenarios that would justify the specific measure that they are complaining about. I can almost always get them to say "Oh, I never thought of that."
In a perfect world we would do this experiment: Every city would have TWO airports. One with the current mix of inconvenient, invasive, and imperfect security checks, the other with only the most cursory check in place (like US Airports in the 50's). Pilots, passengers and employees would use/work at the airport of their own choosing. There would probably be significant cost savings associated with having little or no security measures in place, so that airport could use lower costs as an incentive too.
I'd love to see the long-term results.
Yes, and don't forget the far left liberals who want to censor music and have made it mandatory that CD's carry rating labels.
No one side is innocent of censorship. There are many on both sides who are against censorship, lets remember.
Why are the statues and paintings there in the first place? If they interefere with the business of the place, they shouldn't be there at all. If they don't, they shouldn't be covered to improve the image of the speaker.
If Ashcroft and Powell are trying to stage a delivery of media-bites to television without distraction, they can get made up and do that in a controlled studio. If they are trying to speak with the trappings, hiastory and authority of the location they are in, they shouldn't hide the location.
On the other hand, maybe we'd "get" the message better if the background was a huge waving flag, like in the opening scene of "Patton".
Let me pick my own world view, don't change it for the cameras.
I think they refused the passenger to take the foil with 'gunpowder' written on it on board because he might fake a bottle of actual gunpowder and threaten to blow it up in the plane. This is why no toy-weapons are alowed on board, too.
Just my idea.
There's nothing more fundamental to the concepts of Liberty and Freedom than conformism.... not.
"I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
I can also
break up my writings
and ramblings at
random
points
but that does
not make me a
poet
> those curtains were bought to hide the breasts
> simply to stop the press from acting like 5th
> graders trying to get politicians into a shot
> with the breast. if you see the actual setting,
> the statue would hardly be seen from a normal
> point of view, but photographers would go out of
> their way to include them in a shot.
I've seen this written a couple of times on Slashdot. Do you have any proof of this?
It doesn't make sense to me, because I can't imagine an editor of a major newsagency allowing hundreds of photos to be shown with the same pair of statue's breasts in them. So why would professional photographers go out of their way to immaturely compose their pictures that won't get printed anyway. I mean, it's not like the breasts improve the photo's newsworthyness.
I guess you could use the same justification to censor the war photos: "We got rid of this whole free speech thing because people started acting like a bunch of fifth graders, you know showing pictures of injured civilians and stuff."
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
They are indeed. Partly because of a tax system which rewards and encourages donations, partly because they have so much more to give than most other countries (higher GDP/capita + lower taxes -> more money to spend on everything, including charity). As for hunger - there are plenty of charities active to feed the homeless, as well as those in other countries. Poverty? Last time I looked, the definition of "poverty" in the US included people with cable TV. That's only "poverty" if you're on drugs.
"You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and kill you."
Only in america is this kind of lawlessness and vigilanteeism revered.
That appears to be a reference to law enforcement. Insert the words "or imprison" after "kill". The point is that if you break the law like that, you will be punished for it - many criminals are dumb enough to be surprised when their crimes result in long stays in prison. Punishing criminals is very far from any kind of "lawlessness"!
"You do not have the right to demand that our children risk their lives in foreign wars to soothe your aching conscience. We hate oppressive governments and won't lift a finger to stop you from going to fight if you'd like. However, we do not enjoy parenting the entire world and do not want to spend so much of our time battling each and every little tyrant with a military uniform and a funny hat."
Sound awfull naive given the war on iraq huh?
Not really. For more than a decade after Gulf War Part 1, the Untied Notions persisted with their plan, Operation Ostrich (apply sanctions which are ignored by many of those who voted for them, send "inspectors" who couldn't find their ass with both hands, ignore problem until it goes away or someone else deals with it). Only once Iraq was becoming a larger threat - funding terrorists (as Hussein did quite openly), housing them (Ansar Al Islam, which included a hundred or more Al Queda people from Afghanistan) did the US decide to act. Also note the continued rule of Mugabe, apartheid and all, Arafat's den of terror, the unelected "president" of Syria, and many other such regimes. So far, post-Clinton, the wars have entailed Afghanistan (when the Taleban's room-mates Al Queda attacked the US) and Iraq (attacked US interests in 1994, housed Al Queda splinter group in the North, trained terrorists in aircraft hijacking, still has large stores of anthrax, sarin etc unaccounted for along with a nuclear program). They were threats to and enemies of the US, and were removed as a result; other regimes, such as Mugabe's apartheid, are not - so they don't receive the same treatment.
The US is not pursuing the half-witted interventionism morons like Clinton (let's bomb Kosovo. Oh, and maybe Sudan. Uhh... how about Iraq, too?) - who sat flying US aircraft over Iraq for the whole of his rule instead of actually dealing with the root problem - meanwhile, creating a "peace process" in Northern Ireland fit only for use in perforated sheets in the bathroom, and doing much the same in the Israel/Palestinian situation.
What kind of a moron wrote those "laws".
I don't know, but they make some very valid points. Far too many morons these days seem to think the rest of the world should fund their lifestyle without any effort on their part!
The devil is usually in the details, though. Let me provide some examples of stupid airport security (and contrast to good security examples).
1: Flew to Ecuador-- in Newark, out JFK. The terminal in JFK had the ticket counters in the same physical space as the gates *with no possibility&* of a wall or checkpoint between. Thus,the security checkpoint had to be before you get to the ticket counter, and every piece of luggage must be assumed to be a carry-on (you cannot have a knife in your checked luggage).
Compare with Singapore where every gate has a security checkpoint, and the gate waiting area is opened just before the plane is ready to board.
2: In Sea-Tac airport, even international travelers are *not* allowed to lock thier luggage (which could be tampered with, or stolen once outside the US) because the TSA must have the ability to search any bag.
Compare to Jakarta where every bag is x-rayed and if necessary searched *before* it is checked. Ususally they are also sealed by the airline or by security personnel to prevent further tampering.
I guess it is true that we in the US have never faced a threat like we do now, unlike many other parts of the world, so we are having to learn many things the hard way. I just wish the government would take a look at how other countries solve the problem and use that as a starting point rather than assume that nobody else has had to deal with these issues.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
I have noticed lately that there are very concerted attempts from both the radical left and extreme right wings to limit speech that they find offensive. It is very troubling. The lefties want to limit "offensive" speech- like Mark Twain- , and the right wing-nuts want to ban BAD things like NUDITY.
I think both of these extreme groups need to take a breather. How about READING Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn. The "nigger" Jim was the most noble and compassionate character. Even as an opressed slave man, he showed that his humanity remained with him. He was the earliest black character to portray true nobility. Sure, he was uneducated and ignorant of many things, but his character was unselfish and kind. Can no-one spot the irony of someone like Jim being called "the nigger" by even his closest friends?
And realistically, I have two young sons, and I object more to the gratuitous and unrealistic violence on television than nudity. Nudity is part of human existence and is almost never offensive. (okay, the nudity in "1984" offended me). I would trade 50% of the violence for 300% more nudity if humans must be titillated in order to watch TV.
Just remember, folks, the PC crowd and the Religious Right may disagree on what should be banned and why, but they're basically identical personalities, believing themselves to know best for OUR kids.
Yes, yes Harry Potter was burned in hell by far right conservitives who want control your lives. Its sort of stupid to ban books like Harry Potter and Huck Finn since its seen as the enemy. Its like burning the pages to The Catcher and the Rye.
Whoa now, hold on cowboy. Im as conservative as anyone you will ever meet, and I am not a Christian, so you can't stereotype us that way. Most conservatives don't give a damn one way or another about Harry Potter. Its a book. Its free speech. End of conversation. Next?
Don't confuse extremist christians with conservatives. Granted, most extremist christians are conservative in many ways, the fact is, they represent a small potion of the conservative political presence. Conservatives range from Log Cabin Republicans, business owners, ex military, Ayn Rand followers, soccor moms, and one hell of a lot more.
I agree with your point that some religous extremists want to control our lives. I agree that its stupid to ban books, and would extend it to say immoral to ban books, and it's an attack on all things American. I disagree with your assumption that anything more than a tiny minority of conservatives think this way. The vast majority of us do not. I don't think all liberals eat tofu either.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
What goes around, comes around. Liberals are sick and tired of the right painting us as the cause of every problem that our country faces. Just look at the success of Ann Coulter and the buffoons at Fox News. Their fans don't seem to realize that the Constitution especially the Bill of Rights are purely liberal.
More of the same. Fox puts on more liberals than CNN puts on conservatives, so while they have plenty of conservatives on thier network, at least they open the station to all points of view. I watch both, personally. CNN tends to have more people in the field, Fox tends to get both sides in the studio, from my perspective. Ann Coulter is one of them. Alan Combs also has the number one rated debate show on cable, and he is a Liberal. Geraldo, Cavuto, and many more are known Democrats. Bill ORielly is NOT a conservative, no matter what anyone tells you. He is a populist. Just as I don't confuse the loudest Liberals/Democrats as the majority (Carville for instance) it would serve you better to not think all conservatives are represented by Jesse Helms or Sean Hannity.
Attacking all conservatives is not likely to improve how Liberal are perceived, rather it tends to reinforce it. Or prove it.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
The population of Utah is 2,316,256 vs. a population of 288,368,698, which means that Utah represents 0.00803227 of the US. Less than one percent.
0.8% of the population, but 2% of the senate.
If you are going to sit there and blame entire STATES,
Blame? It's a simple fact: Utah is mostly Mormons, who believe in strong religious values. Oklahoma is possibly not as strongly religious, but when I moved from Nevada to Oklahoma, I went from classes where no one believed in strict creationism to where most people believed in strict creationism. Again, the fact is that a Judge in West Virginia got elected because of his posting the ten commandments in his court (which his TV commericals focused heavily on.)
YOU are as intolorant as you claim conservatives are.
My post doesn't really claim that conservatives are intolerant. You seem to be whaling on strawmen here.
Libertarians ARE conservative on most issues, and more conservative than Repuplicans by a long shot. You should go read about them
I know what libertarians are. This seems to be mostly a definitional argument: one of the defining characteristics of a conservative in the American system to me is an emphasis on strict moral values.
I am not a christian, yet a conservative.
So? Large groups of Muslims would line up with the Christians protesting drinking and drugs and pornography and "evil" music, as would some Jews. As far as I know, other religions have different emphasises, but I wouldn't be surprised to find people of any religion (including atheists and agnostics) in those groups. (I understand some hippies got a rude awakening by the Hopi, who didn't approve of thier lifestyle any more then the "Man" did. As another example, there's a group of atheist feminists who vehemently attack pornography.) It's an attitude about morality and how and what should be enforced by the law, rather than strictly about religion.
I have been nice enough to tolorate your intolorance against the entire populations of Oklahoma, Utah and West Virgina,
Well, I am pretty intolerant towards myself (Oklahoma State University, class of 2002), but I know many nice Oklahomans, all over the political spectrum, some of whom I agree with politically and some I don't. (And actually, you haven't been very tolerant at all.)
You show no mercy in killing their blood-and-sweat hard work away out of obvious, clueless order...you must be that BOFH(Bastard Operator From Hell) we always talk about.
:)
Nice to meet you!