Not just china and the middle east then.

Originally Posted by Skybird

So you accept child abuse to stay a profitable business, and terrorist communication for planning mass murder untackled?

Beware: catch question!

What I mean is: pretty slogans and catch phrases will not help us to solve the dilemma - just deepening the trenches.

Your trying to put me in a Double-Bind.
Considering your credentials, and posts you've submitted, I think you are familiar with something about me (which I prefer to keep off the forums. I do however, percieve you as one of the Good Guys).

I have learned to stay out of Double-Binds, and shan't reply.

[Wolfehunter]

Originally Posted by Skybird

It's a dilemma.

You actively assist criminal energy by keeping the internet unregulated.

Regulating it a bit to battle crime, opens a range of options political opportunists may find all too tempting to abuse.

Well, we do not have total freedom on the street, too. There are laws, and policemen, and rules saying what you may do, and what not. There are even sanctions if you do not comply.

So far, the internet is a truly anarchic space. That it cannot stay that way, is clear.

Total, unlimited freedom, is an illusions. You need to balance individual freedom versus communal interests, and security concerns.

the dilemma is: where to set that balance, and who should decide? In the end, not this is the dilemma, but those mkaing decisons - politicians - being so deeply corrupted.

So in the end this is more about the failed poltical culture of the present, and the corruption of democracies, then about freedom and internet.

In Germany, an initiative of banning child porn sites and replace access to them with a warning shield, is under fire. the call to reduce chances for internet censorship - actively allows criminals to spread child pronography. On the othe rhand we have just seen a pltical intirgue around one of the two public Tv broadcasting stations, ZDF, whose director has been prevented by CDU-minister presidents sitting in the board of directors (why do poltiicians sit in the board of directors for Tv broadcasters...?) to get reelected into office, becausue he was known to be too indepedent and asking too critical questions. these two examples show that both camps in the dispute have valid, justified concerns.

I personally would prohibit members of political parties to become members of federal or national parliaments, I would prohibit political parties to constituate as organised parties, I would prohibit political mandate-holders from serving in private economy or business control boards at the same time, and I would set every economical lobbying agency on fire. This would eventually lead to a political culture again where the risk of regulating the internet a bit is less likely to be abused for political censorship as well.

Also, candidates for political offices would be needed to successfully conduct an IQ test and a long-termed character and personality observation and assessment program.

But I like Anarchy..

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Snestorm

Your trying to put me in a Double-Bind.
Considering your credentials, and posts you've submitted, I think you are familiar with something about me (which I prefer to keep off the forums. I do however, percieve you as one of the Good Guys).

I have learned to stay out of Double-Binds, and shan't reply.

As I said: a catch question. The situation simply is not that easy as if it could be adressed by simply maximising freedom and ignoring all concerns regarding crime (from financial fraud over child pornography to bombing instrucxtions and terrorist communication). that's what I wanted to illustrate.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Wolfehunter

But I like Anarchy..

Only as long as you are not the poor loser ending up with a load of buckshot in his face.

[AVGWarhawk]

It's a dilemma.

You actively assist criminal energy by keeping the internet unregulated.

Regulating it a bit to battle crime, opens a range of options political opportunists may find all too tempting to abuse.

Well, we do not have total freedom on the street, too. There are laws, and policemen, and rules saying what you may do, and what not. There are even sanctions if you do not comply.

So far, the internet is a truly anarchic space. That it cannot stay that way, is clear.

Total, unlimited freedom, is an illusions. You need to balance individual freedom versus communal interests, and security concerns.

Excellent Skybird! You are never more correct in stating the net is anarchic space. In my terms, it is a free-for-all. I agree 100% on your thoughts here on the internet.

[Wolfehunter]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Only as long as you are not the poor loser ending up with a load of buckshot in his face.

Lose? Chaos always wins.

[GoldenRivet]

Originally Posted by Snestorm

Those who surrender Freedom for Security are destined to loose both.

absolutely.

bad idea this net filtration business no matter how well intentioned it may be.

the road to hell is paved with good intentions you know

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Excellent Skybird! You are never more correct in stating the net is anarchic space. In my terms, it is a free-for-all. I agree 100% on your thoughts here on the internet.

Why not an entry page describing the situation suspected?
"Enter"
"Close"

Let us also consider that all communications over the internet are trackable.
The free flow of information can also be used as a tool in apprehending criminals.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Snestorm

Why not an entry page describing the situation suspected?
"Enter"
"Close"

Let us also consider that all communications over the internet are trackable.
The free flow of information can also be used as a tool in apprehending criminals.

I did not have any comment on what happens in Germany.

Our "Government"(read Dictatorship) , went to the last election saying that the filter,(Censorship) ,would be an opt-in filter , 3 days after the election they changed it to a mandatory system with a secret filter list - the so called filter test report has been seriously re edited to make it look like the tests worked , even though the communications minister kept changing the requirements of the test WHILE it was happening ,only 8 isp's took part in the test and one of them had a grand total of 15 customers sign up yet we're supposed to believe that the test was legitimate

coincidently , the minister received the test report at the start of October , he said it would be released at the end of October and confirmed that when he was asked about it in a senate committee but he ends up releasing it just over a week from Christmas when he can try to slip it under the radar of the media and opponents

[Ducimus]

Internet filters have been around for a long time now. The agument for them, is a good one from a business point of view in terms of liablity.

Say you pass a joke to a coworker of some naked chick. A female coworker happends to look over and see whats on your monitor. That's an instant sexual harrassment lawsuit against the company.

Then there's this thing im engaging in right now called "Cyber slacking". Posting on forums while at work. Did you know that with the right product, a companys system admin can sort through those tons of traffic logs to see who's viewing what, when, and for how long?

BTW, did you also know that US public Library's (and school districts to if im not mistaken), by law, have to have an internet filter?

Now one could go all moralistic about this, but the bottom line is, that if your on a network owned by a business, corporation, state, or government they have every right to filter and monitor the traffic that goes over their network. It's they're bandwidth and resources, that they pay for.

Where the slippery slope comes in is when an ISP's use a filter that has home based subscribers. ( *cough* christian ones in specific) Then people get a block screen because they can't visit assmunchinganalpaste.com and email us a nastygram assuming we're the big brother blocking their traffic when we didn't have anything to do with it.

[Freiwillige]

I think the major concern here is that generally what is acceptable to one group is not to another. And by the time the world governments get everything (They deem) offensive filtered the web will be like Chinese state run TV.

Example Blocking Neo Nazi websites could also link to anything Nazi related including the silent Hunter series!

Blocking religious extremists sites could eventually ending up with your local church website being blocked.

The web is regulated now. Many child pornography rings are broken up and people being arrested. Many extremist plotters are arrested as well. The web is regulated and allot better than many think.

This on the other hand is just thought control plain and simple.