Slashdot Mirror
What Do Court-Ordered Internet Bans Really Mean?
tcd004 writes "Chris Lamprecht, a.k.a. Minor Threat, was the first person to be banned from the internet back in 1995. Since then, the practice has gained popularity worldwide. In the last year, courts in Australia, Britain, Canada, and the United States have all banned people from the Internet. A British court recently banned a convicted pedophile specifically from entering chatrooms for 10 years. But how effective are the bans? Minor Threat contends that the rules governing his internet ban use were toothless. How much harder is it to keep people off the internet in an age when everything--from parking meters to refrigerators--comes with an IP address." (Note: the Globe and Mail story requires registration.)
Hi, Is Anybody in SlashDot banned from connecting to Internet?
Är du också det? Vet du, sushi är jävligt gott!
How much harder is it to keep people off the internet in an age when everything--from parking meters to refrigerators--comes with an IP address.
What, now you're telling me I can't eat anything anymore?! Damn you Al Gore!!!!
A system whereby these restrictions can be easily applied, but allowing for certain internet uses is simple to implement. If everyone was scanned biologically from birth by way of iris scans and any other scientific identification then this would be difficult to cirumvent.
Everyone has their unique ID and logs onto their email, banking and a variety of services using this alongside existing methods such as passwords. When using any device deemed powerful enough users would be required to 'login' as such using eye scans. The state could then monitor the usage of devices, sift through communication and have the identities of all the parties involved.
Such a system would be easily challenged under democracy as the demos would object to it. Therefore an autocratic system, such as a dictatorship, would be the best political setup. The government could, in this age, effectively monitor, control, and police the lives of all of it's citizens, ensuring their happiness.
Followed up by rigurous policing and wide ranging law, the state would be able to maintain peace and stability on a scale we certainly can't attain in our current environment. Harsh and disproportionate punishment would encourage people to think twice before being nasty to other people and engender a real harmony.
This story is yet another indication of why we need, for the good of us all, to move towards a totalitarian, restrictive, state run empire. Long live the MInistry for the Ceation and Restriction Of SOFTware!
But they must be cleared identified as belonging to a sanctioned military unit of a recognized nation. Terrorists such as Al-Queada don't fall into those categories.
Absolute horse shit. No matter how many times idiots like yourself, who have certainly never read the GCRTPOW repeat this tripe, its simply not true.
If a person is not a combatant, then they're a civilian (or more rarely medical personel or clergy.). So they're either a POW, in which case you are allowed to detain them securely but you have to be nice, or they're civilians, in which case you have to be careful not to shoot them, be as nice as possible as possible. If someone is a combatant, under the GCRTPOW, the only way you can claim they are not a POW is if competent tribunal determines such - until that time, they are POWs.
Repeat after me: If it's war and they were fighting you, they're POWs and you must treat them as such, until competent tribunal says otherwise.
Idiot...
I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.