Heck... Apple is the company that sued Microsoft over the "look and feel" of Microsoft Windows being too similar to Mac OS. Back then, anything other than a command-line interface would have triggered a lawsuit from Apple. Apparently they felt they were entitled to exclusive rights to GUIs for being the first to popularize them.
Laissez-faire types will hate me for suggesting this, but this is exactly the sort of thing that should lead to anti-discrimination lawsuits. We make a big deal out of prohibiting racial discrimination in employment and housing, so why not in transportation? It's because Muslims are all terrorists... innit?
I don't know about the fifth amendment argument, but the "ex post facto" issue is avoided by having the courts declare that the measures aren't punitive in nature. It's patently ridiculous, but it's worked in the past.
It's easy to sell the public on the concept of sex offender registries, but few of those people seem to realize that once you can force some criminals to register you open the way for the government to force all criminals to register.
People too dangerous to be out should remain in jail. People who aren't so dangerous that they can't be released should be allowed to live normal lives once their sentence is done.
I don't mind the government promoting the spread of broadband, but I hope that in the process it steers clear of content filtering and content monitoring. This is potentially one of those "deal with the devil" situations, so let's make sure it's done right. Let's make sure free-speech and privacy rights are well protected from the very beginning. Let's avoid a situation similar to that currently faced by public broadcasters who, due to the public nature of the airwaves, are forced to accept what would in any other context constitute unconstitutional restraint on speech.
The Transit Authority's SLAPP lawsuit has served its purpose: it prevented the students from speaking at Defcon. In the end there was no judgment sought, for no judgment was necessary in order that the Transit Authority's wishes be granted in full. The speakers were silenced without trial, and now we're told this should be interpreted as a kind of "happy ending".
I call bullshit on this one. First off, HIV can be tested for by an ELISA method which is way cheaper than a cell phone camera. And the quality of other lab results are the most important function of those "refigerator" sized analyzers, not because of cost but because you can kill way more people with inaccurate results than with no results at all. I could shine a flashlight at a blood smear and take a good guess at your H&H too, but I wouldn't trust my life to it.
So what? Free broadcast television has filtering as well, to bring it down to "PG" level, so I don't see what the issue is here. If you want raunchy stuff, you upgrade to pay TV or pay internet that is not censored.
The FCC's proposal for free Internet actually included an option for no filtering, so the issue has less to do with having to choose a different provider for the "raunchy stuff" and more to do with the kinds of filters the government wouldn't let you opt-out of. The UK got a taste of what things might be like for US Free Internet users when UK ISP's censored the Virgin Killers page on Wikipedia. You could, in theory, pay for an uncensored commercial connection to be able to access an uncensored Wikipedia, but that's not the sort of content that would attract large numbers of users to commercial alternatives, who would find it very difficult to compete with free.
What you end up with is censorship and little or no competition. No thanks.
And in order to obtain a license I must first agree to self-censor? That's actually worse than filtering, since it not only results in censorship as with filtering, but it also ensures that can't make use of a public communications medium without the government's permission.
When I first heard of the FCC's plans for a free wireless network, I was concerned that the filtering mandate might eventually be applied to adults as well as minors. I was accused of making a "slippery slope" argument, but after reading about other countries expanding their own filtering efforts after initially limiting the filters to illegal content, I am quite convinced that the FCC's plan is a very bad idea indeed. Filtered internet and the potential displacement of commercial alternatives? No thanks. I want my Internet without filters of any kind.
Let the spectrum go to unlicensed devices and have a network grow organically around that.
Well, if we're going to talk about rights, I think we need to go farther than anonymity. How about the right to free speech? This is so abridged that regular people feel the need to speak anonymously, lest they be fired from their work, denied a new job, sued, etc. So, it seems to me that anonymity is a symptom of the problem rather than the fundamental right that is being violated.
You're thinking of anonymity in the context of choosing to speak publicly, but in fact anonymity also concerns the things I say and do in private. So much for the need for anonymity being just "a symptom of the problem".
IWF has decided to make an exception for this particular image, but the underlying attitude that led to its blocking remains the same. If not for the public scrutiny this particular decision has prompted, the image in question would still be blocked. I find that very disturbing.
The biggest problem I see with this sort of filtering is the fact that, at least for borderline cases, you rarely know whether the image being blocked is actually illegal. Usually it takes the due process of law to determine that a person producing an image has done something illegal, but with filtering all it takes to block an image is for the image to seem like child pornography. Whether it is or not is irrelevant. All that matters is the judgment of a private party.
I wonder how large a no-fly zone would be required for a space elevator? After all, just imagine the damage it might cause if the thing were to collapse and land over a populated area.
In China, criticising the government is prohibited. In the Middle East, pornography is prohibited. In the United States, reproducing commercial sensitive data is prohibited via copyright and patent laws, in Germany Nazi memorabilia is prohibited. Every society has its limits.
Which is precisely why G8 is the wrong group to tackle Internet regulation. Every society has its limits, but no society has exactly the same limits as the others. G8 is too far removed from the public interest to do any good here, and the interests of those who would regulate the Internet too different to lead to anything but an unreasonable "middle ground".
And no, overpopulation won't be a problem becasue humans, like all biological creatures will only expand to meet the amount of food that is available. The rest will starve.
*blink* *blink*
Um...
*blink* *blink*
Starving or dying for lack of sufficient resources is the very criterion by which we determine overpopulation has occurred.
Once they start filtering content they believe children shouldn't see, why would they not also filter -- and perhaps monitor -- adult access to gambling websites, The Pirate Bay, Al-Qaeda websites, etc.?
Slashdot Mirror
Heck... Apple is the company that sued Microsoft over the "look and feel" of Microsoft Windows being too similar to Mac OS. Back then, anything other than a command-line interface would have triggered a lawsuit from Apple. Apparently they felt they were entitled to exclusive rights to GUIs for being the first to popularize them.
Laissez-faire types will hate me for suggesting this, but this is exactly the sort of thing that should lead to anti-discrimination lawsuits. We make a big deal out of prohibiting racial discrimination in employment and housing, so why not in transportation? It's because Muslims are all terrorists... innit?
Translation: We can always put it back in later.
I don't know about the fifth amendment argument, but the "ex post facto" issue is avoided by having the courts declare that the measures aren't punitive in nature. It's patently ridiculous, but it's worked in the past.
In fact, several states have already proposed "drug offender" registries similar to what's currently in place for sex offenders.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15971396/
It's easy to sell the public on the concept of sex offender registries, but few of those people seem to realize that once you can force some criminals to register you open the way for the government to force all criminals to register.
People too dangerous to be out should remain in jail. People who aren't so dangerous that they can't be released should be allowed to live normal lives once their sentence is done.
I don't mind the government promoting the spread of broadband, but I hope that in the process it steers clear of content filtering and content monitoring. This is potentially one of those "deal with the devil" situations, so let's make sure it's done right. Let's make sure free-speech and privacy rights are well protected from the very beginning. Let's avoid a situation similar to that currently faced by public broadcasters who, due to the public nature of the airwaves, are forced to accept what would in any other context constitute unconstitutional restraint on speech.
Christstollen? Gestohlen!
The Transit Authority's SLAPP lawsuit has served its purpose: it prevented the students from speaking at Defcon. In the end there was no judgment sought, for no judgment was necessary in order that the Transit Authority's wishes be granted in full. The speakers were silenced without trial, and now we're told this should be interpreted as a kind of "happy ending".
It's not a happy ending. It's sad. Very sad.
Posted by: jamesdionne:
I agree.
I can't wait for the Apple ads to make fun of this. People are willing to pay extra to avoid Windows Vista.
Are you suggesting your candidates always win? Mine don't.
The FCC's proposal for free Internet actually included an option for no filtering, so the issue has less to do with having to choose a different provider for the "raunchy stuff" and more to do with the kinds of filters the government wouldn't let you opt-out of. The UK got a taste of what things might be like for US Free Internet users when UK ISP's censored the Virgin Killers page on Wikipedia. You could, in theory, pay for an uncensored commercial connection to be able to access an uncensored Wikipedia, but that's not the sort of content that would attract large numbers of users to commercial alternatives, who would find it very difficult to compete with free.
What you end up with is censorship and little or no competition. No thanks.
And in order to obtain a license I must first agree to self-censor? That's actually worse than filtering, since it not only results in censorship as with filtering, but it also ensures that can't make use of a public communications medium without the government's permission.
No thanks. Let's not fix what is not broken.
I should at least read the summary before posting, no?
Apologies.
When I first heard of the FCC's plans for a free wireless network, I was concerned that the filtering mandate might eventually be applied to adults as well as minors. I was accused of making a "slippery slope" argument, but after reading about other countries expanding their own filtering efforts after initially limiting the filters to illegal content, I am quite convinced that the FCC's plan is a very bad idea indeed. Filtered internet and the potential displacement of commercial alternatives? No thanks. I want my Internet without filters of any kind.
Let the spectrum go to unlicensed devices and have a network grow organically around that.
What a shame that the first thing some people do when told about adults interacting with children is to think of something perverse.
You're thinking of anonymity in the context of choosing to speak publicly, but in fact anonymity also concerns the things I say and do in private. So much for the need for anonymity being just "a symptom of the problem".
IWF has decided to make an exception for this particular image, but the underlying attitude that led to its blocking remains the same. If not for the public scrutiny this particular decision has prompted, the image in question would still be blocked. I find that very disturbing.
The biggest problem I see with this sort of filtering is the fact that, at least for borderline cases, you rarely know whether the image being blocked is actually illegal. Usually it takes the due process of law to determine that a person producing an image has done something illegal, but with filtering all it takes to block an image is for the image to seem like child pornography. Whether it is or not is irrelevant. All that matters is the judgment of a private party.
I wonder how large a no-fly zone would be required for a space elevator? After all, just imagine the damage it might cause if the thing were to collapse and land over a populated area.
That your daughter "ended up being obsessed with Barbie and pink stuff" suggests she was not as isolated from cultural stereotypes as you claim.
Which is precisely why G8 is the wrong group to tackle Internet regulation. Every society has its limits, but no society has exactly the same limits as the others. G8 is too far removed from the public interest to do any good here, and the interests of those who would regulate the Internet too different to lead to anything but an unreasonable "middle ground".
The more mainstream the Internet becomes, the more it yields to dumb. Some people blame AOL. I blame humanity.
Dumb has large numbers behind it.
The problem with that thought is that starving due to overpopulation is the problem.
*blink*
*blink*
Um...
*blink*
*blink*
Starving or dying for lack of sufficient resources is the very criterion by which we determine overpopulation has occurred.
Once they start filtering content they believe children shouldn't see, why would they not also filter -- and perhaps monitor -- adult access to gambling websites, The Pirate Bay, Al-Qaeda websites, etc.?