Should, in general, a government be aloud to censor the world wide web?
- Thread starter soyasauce_08
- Start date
'In general' isn't a very well defined term. Considering that I encourage our government to censor the www every single day, I'd have to say I'm encouraging them to censor it 'in general' despite only trying to keep two subject matters, child porn and bestiality, off the web.
No commrade I don't think so. If you get my meaning. Only certain governments censor, Communist, Facsist, and Bushist.:-?
think about this...
If the government ends up controlling what goes on on the internet, they would have to hire people to actually find those sites right?... well what money is going to be used to pay their salaries?... The tax payers of course. Right?
If the government ends up controlling what goes on on the internet, they would have to hire people to actually find those sites right?... well what money is going to be used to pay their salaries?... The tax payers of course. Right?
We were seventeen and the cakeman was affecting you --- moving you to greater things (in a lesser way) you had to prove.
I think Tonington has it on this one. Only specifics. A government by the very nature of the Internet can't censor the web without losing what the web is.
Did you happen to see PBS last night, there was a bit on ATT installing a Narus unit, in their San Francisco switching center, in a room only accessible to the NSA and those with NSA clearance, and a splitter so that every single bit of traffic that goes across ATT's network is scanned by the NSA.
A small cigar can change the world. I know, I've done it frequently at parties where I've won all the guests' attention with my generosity and suave gentlemanly bearing. A little flat tin case is all you need, breast-pocket conversation opener, and one of those ciggie lighters that look rather good and you can throw away when empty.
Must be declared a great success; my small cigars all vanish within minutes.
Must be declared a great success; my small cigars all vanish within minutes.
As one who has had my phone calls listened to, talking between Canada and the U.S., phuck no. How dare you. Yet dare they do. Things are getting way out of hand with this stuff.
I've gotten so used to the idea that we're being listened to that it really doesn't bother me. Having hubby working 'tight holes' where industrial espionage is a real and actual concern, they're warned right off the bat that their cell calls are being monitored to ensure that they're not giving away locations, hole details, etc.
Then the same things with a company cell and company computer... they're warned that they're being monitored for abuses.
I tend to assume though that the details of our lives are just not worth someone cataloging in their brain, so it doesn't concern me. And the phone sex is way more interesting when you know someone's listening in. lol.
Then the same things with a company cell and company computer... they're warned that they're being monitored for abuses.
I tend to assume though that the details of our lives are just not worth someone cataloging in their brain, so it doesn't concern me. And the phone sex is way more interesting when you know someone's listening in. lol.
No I didn't see it. But as has been mentioned, liberties get erroded only so far and then people get up off their duff to do something about it. China and Iran all filter for content but that doesn't affect the net as if it's important, it can get out and get hosted outside the country where government pressure doesn't hold sway.
Besides, the NSA will end up selling that information to corporations looking for money from mp3 downloaders long before they catch terrorists or anything with it.
in my opinion, if the government had control of blocking specific sites, then they would also be able to stop anoying pop-ups. even though i do have a pop-up blocker, some still make it through. Very annoying. that is one good point i guess. However, i do like my privacy, i wouldnt like to think that somewhere out there, there is a possibility of someone reading my e-mails and stuff like that. Its our right to have our privacy.
The government wouldn't try to stop annoying popups. They're the advertising that fuels the net. No way they're going to try to shut that down anymore than they'd try to block ads on television.
Good luck to any government that tries it on. It's generally possible to trace most traffic on the net and I agree with some that crime should be prosecuted whatever form it takes. The rule of law and all that.
The US government tried really hard to stop PGP encryption with no success in the end. A bunch of people went to jail for breaching secrecy laws and (get this) trafficking in armaments. In the end, it is freely available. Criminals are of course using encryption to help them keep their communications secret but likewise it lets us protect our bank transactions and whatever else we want or need to keep from intrusion , from whomever, governments or criminals, same diff. to me.
The US government tried really hard to stop PGP encryption with no success in the end. A bunch of people went to jail for breaching secrecy laws and (get this) trafficking in armaments. In the end, it is freely available. Criminals are of course using encryption to help them keep their communications secret but likewise it lets us protect our bank transactions and whatever else we want or need to keep from intrusion , from whomever, governments or criminals, same diff. to me.
I have been doing some extensive reading on just this subject recently. I will probably get around to writing a thorough thread at some point, and boring you all to death... In the meantime, some overviews.
All non-corrupt governments censor certain types of expression. Perjury laws, bans on certain forms of pornography, and conspiracy laws are all examples of censorship. Excluding them from the definition of expression would have a chilling effect on other forms of valid expression, and so they must be dealt with on an individual basis. There are extensive bodies of legislation and jurisprudence on what constitutes reasonable limits on freedom of expression in free and democratic societies. Democratic societies do not have absolute rights, because absolute rights can be used in ways which are not conducive to the principles on which free and democratic societies are based upon.
In that light, non-corrupt governments have a responsibility to censor certain websites, but only in a way that is demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. So, in general, yes, but a general website, no. Furthermore, independent systems of accountability are necessary as well to demonstrate the justification.
All non-corrupt governments censor certain types of expression. Perjury laws, bans on certain forms of pornography, and conspiracy laws are all examples of censorship. Excluding them from the definition of expression would have a chilling effect on other forms of valid expression, and so they must be dealt with on an individual basis. There are extensive bodies of legislation and jurisprudence on what constitutes reasonable limits on freedom of expression in free and democratic societies. Democratic societies do not have absolute rights, because absolute rights can be used in ways which are not conducive to the principles on which free and democratic societies are based upon.
In that light, non-corrupt governments have a responsibility to censor certain websites, but only in a way that is demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. So, in general, yes, but a general website, no. Furthermore, independent systems of accountability are necessary as well to demonstrate the justification.
I read about that on slashdot a while ago, they had an interview with a retired AT&T engineer who setup this room for them, allowing the NSA to capture raw data flowing across their fibre network.