Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt5

DS, your inconsistencies are starting to show. First you claim you want to protect us against things that *you* don't believe we should be allowed to view or stumble across.

Then in other messages you are advocating filtering to force the creation of an uncontrollable version of the net such as William Gibson's cyberspace.

And in some messages, both, whilst also maintaining a view that while our elective government can try and control that which is illegal both online and offline, it should, for it is obliged to. Where is the "I" in any of that richary ?

Also, there is no inconsistency for my views are not mutually exclusive in terms of the overall picture and progression I am viewing this all from.

Once again, here is my personal take on this.

1) Our elected government is obliged to administer law and protection and all that when it comes to things deemed illegal.

2) This is done reasonably well (but obviously not perfectly) in our offline world, and I for one as a citizen of Oz am glad of it and support it regardless that our elected government is not the one I voted for.

3) The internut is used extensively within Oz for all sorts of legal and illegal activity.

4) Just as it is our elected governments duty as per points 1 and 2, it similarly should apply to point 3. In other words, the same sort of regulation and application of law should apply, and as a citizen of Oz I support our elected government in their attempts.

5) I also recognise that governments are generally not to be trusted (only a fool would not think that) and as far as possible within the support of reasonable and just laws, one should never place anything too much in their control that they aren't justified in having or are likely to misuse.

6) Computer based communications are a hobby and interest of mine that goes back a long long time (was once even quite involved in radio, just like you are now) and I am in somewhat awe of what has been managed thus far in that regard in such a short period of time. I remember the days of FIDOnet when our main feeds between Oz and the USofA relied upon the donated time, effort, money, and good will of just two people; a Born Again Christian, and a (self professed) "Rampant Homosexual" as he called himself. We've certainly come a long way since so few were doing something great for so many, and I for one don't want it to stop with just what we have now regardless of what it is used for.

7) Yes, I share the dream of many that our internut be taken to Gibson cyberspace and Peter F.Hamilton and Ian M. Banks types of levels ... and beyond. Don't you ?

8) The necessary and right to attempt control that I want and support our elected government to bring to bear on our McWeb as it currently is, may well be just the kick up the arse the more clever of us (and less corporately bound) to help take this puppy to beyond the control of governments, but also AT LONG LAST less a slave to telcos and ISPs. I have a dream and I'm calling for change.

My pragmatism is consistent and I'm merely holding to more than one reason why ISP-level content filtering should be implemented.

While the nasties can be stopped, they should be ... and not only for the children – and it is ok to include "teh govamin" as one of those potential nasties. :)

Actually, I imagine there would be far more protection "for the children" in the sci-fi versions of our future net, than there is now, anyway – and I do expect it to happen sooner rather than later.

Anyway, perhaps a visit to my latest blog entry might help clarify my consistent persistent position in all of this, richary. ;)

regarDS