should not be taken away or blocked, simple as that
... and yet that is exactly how you were brought up and no doubt how you will bring up your own children.
The internut is not and never will be the pure stream of sustaining and beneficial wonderfulness that the supporters of ILCF want, or opponents of ILCF deride for not being able to deliver.
Does this mean that no attempt should be made to clean the stream at all ?
regarDS
Friday, November 14, 2008
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt11
Weren't you sin binned for your trolling a couple of threads ago and asked not to participate in these threads?
Yes I was binned for two days but no to everything else.
You want a world consisting only of people who agree with you in everything ?
Count me out of that kind of world.
regarDS
Yes I was binned for two days but no to everything else.
You want a world consisting only of people who agree with you in everything ?
Count me out of that kind of world.
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt11
derspatz writes...Which is what the ongoing development of IT is all about.
Does this ongoing development also include "circumvention"? :)
Yes. It is called progress.
regarDS
Does this ongoing development also include "circumvention"? :)
Yes. It is called progress.
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt11
Currently the 'list' is maintained not by law but by a bureaucrat that sits in ACMA looking into things that people may have reported they were offended by some website regardless of whether the intentions of the complainant are true or not.
(quick eduction: "opposing opinion != troll", ok ? And do you want a world containing only folk who agree with you on everything, hmmm ?)
"Intentions of the complainant" ? I tend to reckon that if someone has gone to the effort of complaining to something other than the thin air around them, then their intentions are at very least noble and justified in their own mind !
After all, how do you explain/justify your own complaints ?
I'd not really want to have the job of being "on the board" or whatever when it come to deciding classifications and what goes into the filter, as I'm not really willing to sacrifice my own mind and memory to the kind of stuff we are talking about as needing classification ... and I mourn the fact that both the data and the need to catagorise it in the first place even exists at all.
Which is why I reckon it will come down to A.I.s in the long, long, run.
The ILCF shall change nothing, the genie was let out of the bottle a long time ago.
No huge argument there (and cheers that we are able to quickly move on to using ILCF ... the longer form of presentation was getting tedious). So the genie has been let out of a bottle, but the bottle was still bounded and thus the genie is still contained and thus controllable.
Tis all just a matter of effort, willingness, and time ... oh, and numbers.
Could you guarantee 100% that the filter could never and would never be used to censor something that might be embarrassing to the government of the time or an ally?
I'm sure that given the opportunity that it WOULD for a time, but it wouldn't be the end of the world, or all that surprising ... or effective for that matter !
I have faith that those desiring power for themselves will nearly always seek to attain it ... and that there will always be resistance to that and ultimately successful resistance at that. Complacency is a far greater evil in my book.
Will this filter magically stop all child sex abuse? Has it shown that it could even cause a reduction in the number of children abused both in Australia and overseas? Will it stop predators from grooming children over chat? No on all counts.
I don't think that any sensible person is thinking that ILCF is going to be the Magic Bullet that kills all the monsters once and for all – or even wings many of them ... but it is a start and the attempt is certainly worth making don't you think ?
regarDS
(quick eduction: "opposing opinion != troll", ok ? And do you want a world containing only folk who agree with you on everything, hmmm ?)
"Intentions of the complainant" ? I tend to reckon that if someone has gone to the effort of complaining to something other than the thin air around them, then their intentions are at very least noble and justified in their own mind !
After all, how do you explain/justify your own complaints ?
I'd not really want to have the job of being "on the board" or whatever when it come to deciding classifications and what goes into the filter, as I'm not really willing to sacrifice my own mind and memory to the kind of stuff we are talking about as needing classification ... and I mourn the fact that both the data and the need to catagorise it in the first place even exists at all.
Which is why I reckon it will come down to A.I.s in the long, long, run.
The ILCF shall change nothing, the genie was let out of the bottle a long time ago.
No huge argument there (and cheers that we are able to quickly move on to using ILCF ... the longer form of presentation was getting tedious). So the genie has been let out of a bottle, but the bottle was still bounded and thus the genie is still contained and thus controllable.
Tis all just a matter of effort, willingness, and time ... oh, and numbers.
Could you guarantee 100% that the filter could never and would never be used to censor something that might be embarrassing to the government of the time or an ally?
I'm sure that given the opportunity that it WOULD for a time, but it wouldn't be the end of the world, or all that surprising ... or effective for that matter !
I have faith that those desiring power for themselves will nearly always seek to attain it ... and that there will always be resistance to that and ultimately successful resistance at that. Complacency is a far greater evil in my book.
Will this filter magically stop all child sex abuse? Has it shown that it could even cause a reduction in the number of children abused both in Australia and overseas? Will it stop predators from grooming children over chat? No on all counts.
I don't think that any sensible person is thinking that ILCF is going to be the Magic Bullet that kills all the monsters once and for all – or even wings many of them ... but it is a start and the attempt is certainly worth making don't you think ?
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt11
[deleted] writes...Paul Keating thought up the GST and John Howard made it a reality
Incorrect, it was Hewson (Liberal) in his "fightback" campaign in 1991 that sowed those seeds which Keating resisted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hewson
Happy to correct error in here where I see it (such as that oft mis-attributed quote in here of Rabbi Daniel Lapin's)
Seriously folks, if you want to have your arguments agains ILCF (ISP Level Content Filtering) taken seriously in the long term, you will need to keep things simple and CORRECT.
BTW Mark, good interview on Sunrise (or whichever one it was). Kudos. The laid back "I'm a cool frood who really knows where his towel is" approach is nearly always going to be the more successful road to take than a "I'm a rabid one cause FRZ who resents this new attempt at Government intrusion into our lives" (not suggesting you are, but it does contrast to what is hurled at the opposition to your opposition).
You came across as not only being knowledgeable, but also relaxed/easy going, confident, reasonable, righteous (in a good way – ie, not self-righteous), mature, and informative.
No tricks. I'm being serious – not that I expect my opinion to amount to much to you mind you but hey, we can't help our histories.
Dunno if the interview will amount to much (other than the odd watcher thinking "hey, that guy seemed genuine, sincere and didn't bore me to death with his point of view which also seemed reasonable"), but you certainly could have done far worse ... and didn't.
So like I said. Kudos. Tips me hat eben.
Hint to the rest. If Senator Conroy et al are coming across a rabid lunatics (not likely despite how you might like to think so if you put your own filters down for the moment and take an honest look) then make sure you are NOT flip side of the same coin.
ie, don't be rabid loonies for your own preferred way.
Have another look at Mark's interview (sorry, I don't have the link handy but I'm sure it will quickly be provided here) and note the pleasant easy-goingness of it all.
Run of the mill Oz doesn't want rabid nutters in their face thrusting leaflets, wild gazes and flecks of spit in the corners of the mouth. It is far more likely to respond to healthy looking reasoned and carefully delivered/non speedy common sense.
You wanna "protect the children" not scare 'em, yes ?
Anyway, as Zannecki (sp? Sorry, I'm in WA and anything longer than "Koshi" is too hard to remember :)) said at the end of the interview; "I don't think it is going to get up"
He could be right, but I suspect SOMETHING new will be put into place like it or not in the end.
regarDS
Incorrect, it was Hewson (Liberal) in his "fightback" campaign in 1991 that sowed those seeds which Keating resisted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hewson
Happy to correct error in here where I see it (such as that oft mis-attributed quote in here of Rabbi Daniel Lapin's)
Seriously folks, if you want to have your arguments agains ILCF (ISP Level Content Filtering) taken seriously in the long term, you will need to keep things simple and CORRECT.
BTW Mark, good interview on Sunrise (or whichever one it was). Kudos. The laid back "I'm a cool frood who really knows where his towel is" approach is nearly always going to be the more successful road to take than a "I'm a rabid one cause FRZ who resents this new attempt at Government intrusion into our lives" (not suggesting you are, but it does contrast to what is hurled at the opposition to your opposition).
You came across as not only being knowledgeable, but also relaxed/easy going, confident, reasonable, righteous (in a good way – ie, not self-righteous), mature, and informative.
No tricks. I'm being serious – not that I expect my opinion to amount to much to you mind you but hey, we can't help our histories.
Dunno if the interview will amount to much (other than the odd watcher thinking "hey, that guy seemed genuine, sincere and didn't bore me to death with his point of view which also seemed reasonable"), but you certainly could have done far worse ... and didn't.
So like I said. Kudos. Tips me hat eben.
Hint to the rest. If Senator Conroy et al are coming across a rabid lunatics (not likely despite how you might like to think so if you put your own filters down for the moment and take an honest look) then make sure you are NOT flip side of the same coin.
ie, don't be rabid loonies for your own preferred way.
Have another look at Mark's interview (sorry, I don't have the link handy but I'm sure it will quickly be provided here) and note the pleasant easy-goingness of it all.
Run of the mill Oz doesn't want rabid nutters in their face thrusting leaflets, wild gazes and flecks of spit in the corners of the mouth. It is far more likely to respond to healthy looking reasoned and carefully delivered/non speedy common sense.
You wanna "protect the children" not scare 'em, yes ?
Anyway, as Zannecki (sp? Sorry, I'm in WA and anything longer than "Koshi" is too hard to remember :)) said at the end of the interview; "I don't think it is going to get up"
He could be right, but I suspect SOMETHING new will be put into place like it or not in the end.
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt11
The fact that he calls the internet the "internut" should have tipped people off long ago.
[deleted] writes...
Must be a totally different person on here. On another forum where he and I post he is well known for posting pages and pages
Cheers [deleted] (though I defy you to actually be able to support what you next said with any real data), which means you (and DQ if you care to ask her) can also back me up re: the fact I've been using the word "internut" long before regularly posting at WP.
But back on topic, I can assure all and sundry that I am quite serious (and not "trolling" in even the slightest) that it is right to seek to bring a similar degree of law and order to our online world as we have and support in our offline world.
I don't think that ILCF (ISP Level Content Filtering) is going to be all that successful in that regard but it is a start that needs to be made that shall lead to a more suitable solution down the track.
I'm currently enjoying watching/taping "Bill Gates: how a geek changed the world" as I type this and I am enjoying some cross-over irony here due to Bill's "from nothing" IT beginning through to creating a virtually all controlling business Empire (heh, Empire is a name of a proggy I wrote to control FIDOnet info coming to/from me and whoever else wanted similar control) that shaped the IT environment more by being more rich in cash and marketing ability (etc) than programming skill.
Ironic to me more from the POV of "trail-blaze, empower the people" mindset through to the current "control the market, blat the resistance" mindset that actually in its attempt to stifle IT development, has instead forced radical new ways of approaching it.
Like OpenSource.
Interestingly enough, the program coming on after is all about "Der Waffen SS"; the gestapo and "no mercy" and control via "Fear and Terror" – which is also somewhat topical yes ?
So, I support the rightful attempts at filtering, accept that the ILCF shall fail but lead to something that might not fail so badly, and believe that we are obliged as Decent Human Beings to at least attempt to bring Law and Order and Protection to The Children to every area of common life that requires it.
Which obviously includes the internut.
I confess that I do not want "status quo"; I want change, and change for the better, and I am pragmatic enough to want ILCF to help bring about those necessary changes.
Bill Gates wanted to "Save the world" with his software (etc). HA. Actually, he has instead decided to merely use the money earned from the software to help "save the world" by giving it away to charity and development of better ways to fight diseases like malaria and TB and improving things in "3rd world countries".
He's dedicated $30 BILLION dollars to charity causes that have very little to do with IT let alone the internut (other than the modern tool that it is).
Kinda puts a different perspective on this whole "waa, teh govamin r breakn teh internut" thing going on here, yes ?
Actually, throughout the whole "Bill Gates" program currently showing on SBS as I type this, I've not once conciously heard the word "internet" mentioned !
regarDS
[deleted] writes...
Must be a totally different person on here. On another forum where he and I post he is well known for posting pages and pages
Cheers [deleted] (though I defy you to actually be able to support what you next said with any real data), which means you (and DQ if you care to ask her) can also back me up re: the fact I've been using the word "internut" long before regularly posting at WP.
But back on topic, I can assure all and sundry that I am quite serious (and not "trolling" in even the slightest) that it is right to seek to bring a similar degree of law and order to our online world as we have and support in our offline world.
I don't think that ILCF (ISP Level Content Filtering) is going to be all that successful in that regard but it is a start that needs to be made that shall lead to a more suitable solution down the track.
I'm currently enjoying watching/taping "Bill Gates: how a geek changed the world" as I type this and I am enjoying some cross-over irony here due to Bill's "from nothing" IT beginning through to creating a virtually all controlling business Empire (heh, Empire is a name of a proggy I wrote to control FIDOnet info coming to/from me and whoever else wanted similar control) that shaped the IT environment more by being more rich in cash and marketing ability (etc) than programming skill.
Ironic to me more from the POV of "trail-blaze, empower the people" mindset through to the current "control the market, blat the resistance" mindset that actually in its attempt to stifle IT development, has instead forced radical new ways of approaching it.
Like OpenSource.
Interestingly enough, the program coming on after is all about "Der Waffen SS"; the gestapo and "no mercy" and control via "Fear and Terror" – which is also somewhat topical yes ?
So, I support the rightful attempts at filtering, accept that the ILCF shall fail but lead to something that might not fail so badly, and believe that we are obliged as Decent Human Beings to at least attempt to bring Law and Order and Protection to The Children to every area of common life that requires it.
Which obviously includes the internut.
I confess that I do not want "status quo"; I want change, and change for the better, and I am pragmatic enough to want ILCF to help bring about those necessary changes.
Bill Gates wanted to "Save the world" with his software (etc). HA. Actually, he has instead decided to merely use the money earned from the software to help "save the world" by giving it away to charity and development of better ways to fight diseases like malaria and TB and improving things in "3rd world countries".
He's dedicated $30 BILLION dollars to charity causes that have very little to do with IT let alone the internut (other than the modern tool that it is).
Kinda puts a different perspective on this whole "waa, teh govamin r breakn teh internut" thing going on here, yes ?
Actually, throughout the whole "Bill Gates" program currently showing on SBS as I type this, I've not once conciously heard the word "internet" mentioned !
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt11
derspatz writes...Tis the world we live in when not virtually minded, so I see it as somewhat hypocritical to want (and support) Law and Order in our offline world and society and yet want virtual anarchy in the online world.
It's not that we don't *want* law and order in the online world, it's that we know that the censorship rules we use in the offline world cannot be effectively applied to the online world.
Oh ? Firstly, who is "we", secondly, what are the "censorship rules" and thirdly, why don't you think that even the basic principals can be made to effectively apply to the online world ?
Data is data, information is information, and IO is IO. While packages of the stuff can be built and shunted around, the basic principals of control also exist, for after all, you wouldn't be getting the packages or shunting around without it.
This goes all the way back to the first "hello world" program you ever wrote, and I for one have coded a lot more clever things than that and have been paid well for it.
The internet is a completely different animal to books, movies, tv, radio and newspapers and it cannot be controlled in the same way.
Sure, every medium for the preservation and transporation and sharing of information needs different ways to library, disseminate, catagorise, and control it (etc, etc). You wouldn't be reading (or NOT reading this depending on your personal filter settings) this if it wasn't the case.
The internut can be suitably controlled/brought to law and order and it is just the methods that will be settled upon to be discovered, tested, and established.
No argument from me that ISP Level Content Filtering (: ILCF :) is not going to be the best way of achieving suitable control ... but it is a start.
Which is what the ongoing development of IT is all about.
Deem "hello world" included.
Now, "where do you want to go today ?" ... and how are you going to choose to get there ? :)
regarDS
It's not that we don't *want* law and order in the online world, it's that we know that the censorship rules we use in the offline world cannot be effectively applied to the online world.
Oh ? Firstly, who is "we", secondly, what are the "censorship rules" and thirdly, why don't you think that even the basic principals can be made to effectively apply to the online world ?
Data is data, information is information, and IO is IO. While packages of the stuff can be built and shunted around, the basic principals of control also exist, for after all, you wouldn't be getting the packages or shunting around without it.
This goes all the way back to the first "hello world" program you ever wrote, and I for one have coded a lot more clever things than that and have been paid well for it.
The internet is a completely different animal to books, movies, tv, radio and newspapers and it cannot be controlled in the same way.
Sure, every medium for the preservation and transporation and sharing of information needs different ways to library, disseminate, catagorise, and control it (etc, etc). You wouldn't be reading (or NOT reading this depending on your personal filter settings) this if it wasn't the case.
The internut can be suitably controlled/brought to law and order and it is just the methods that will be settled upon to be discovered, tested, and established.
No argument from me that ISP Level Content Filtering (: ILCF :) is not going to be the best way of achieving suitable control ... but it is a start.
Which is what the ongoing development of IT is all about.
Deem "hello world" included.
Now, "where do you want to go today ?" ... and how are you going to choose to get there ? :)
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt10
1) It won't work. Most CP is not distributed via www.
It will work enough to keep the majority of general constituents and pollies happy.
2) It won't stop predators on chatrooms, facebook, email etc. Just lull parents into a false sense of security.
Yup, but hey, just as long as things SEEM to be improving, we're back to my first reply.
3) Overblocking. At least 1% of websites accidentally blocked, even during the trial. How does that affect a small business who miight be incorrectly blocked?
The majority of the general public won't care or notice and inconvenienced site-owners will soon edit their pages and/or change their domain name (whatever) to get around the problem. The beauty of this ever changing and flexible thing called "IT".
4) The trial is supposed to test 10,000 websites as a blacklist. The ACMA list has approximately 1000 on it. How are they going to choose the other 9000?
I'm happy to offer some input to that regard. :)
5) Scope creep. Already "unwanted" material is being talked about with no way of knowing what that might entail, from this or any future government.
I can live with that too, especially if it means less adverts blazing out from every other web page.
6) Slowing things down
Soon won't notice as technology continues to speed things up. Not all of us are bothered with using the latest and greatest and fastest anyway. In fact, for most of the world's population the internut probably doesn't figure all that big their lives, and for the ones that it does I bet they wouldn't mind having it less in their lives – or at least their partners wish it so.
7) The probability of the list leaking.
Ya gotta break some eggs to make an omelette. Not sure why it should matter if the list leaks or not, so feel free to tell me why that would be bad so I can pick holes in that too. :) For example, let's say that little johnny got to read the leaked list and saw some r00d words or something in it or typed it into a browser to visit ... aren't The Filters still going to block it anyway ?
... and why would little johnny be interested in reading a leaked list anyway ?
8) The desire not to live in a government controlled censored world where at their leisure they can decide to flick something off.
Tis the world we live in when not virtually minded, so I see it as somewhat hypocritical to want (and support) Law and Order in our offline world and society and yet want virtual anarchy in the online world.
regarDS
It will work enough to keep the majority of general constituents and pollies happy.
2) It won't stop predators on chatrooms, facebook, email etc. Just lull parents into a false sense of security.
Yup, but hey, just as long as things SEEM to be improving, we're back to my first reply.
3) Overblocking. At least 1% of websites accidentally blocked, even during the trial. How does that affect a small business who miight be incorrectly blocked?
The majority of the general public won't care or notice and inconvenienced site-owners will soon edit their pages and/or change their domain name (whatever) to get around the problem. The beauty of this ever changing and flexible thing called "IT".
4) The trial is supposed to test 10,000 websites as a blacklist. The ACMA list has approximately 1000 on it. How are they going to choose the other 9000?
I'm happy to offer some input to that regard. :)
5) Scope creep. Already "unwanted" material is being talked about with no way of knowing what that might entail, from this or any future government.
I can live with that too, especially if it means less adverts blazing out from every other web page.
6) Slowing things down
Soon won't notice as technology continues to speed things up. Not all of us are bothered with using the latest and greatest and fastest anyway. In fact, for most of the world's population the internut probably doesn't figure all that big their lives, and for the ones that it does I bet they wouldn't mind having it less in their lives – or at least their partners wish it so.
7) The probability of the list leaking.
Ya gotta break some eggs to make an omelette. Not sure why it should matter if the list leaks or not, so feel free to tell me why that would be bad so I can pick holes in that too. :) For example, let's say that little johnny got to read the leaked list and saw some r00d words or something in it or typed it into a browser to visit ... aren't The Filters still going to block it anyway ?
... and why would little johnny be interested in reading a leaked list anyway ?
8) The desire not to live in a government controlled censored world where at their leisure they can decide to flick something off.
Tis the world we live in when not virtually minded, so I see it as somewhat hypocritical to want (and support) Law and Order in our offline world and society and yet want virtual anarchy in the online world.
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt10
If they already Know of 10,000 "inappropriate sites", why haven't they shut them down, or tried to?
(1) The "inappropriate sites" are probably not in a country that makes it easy or as cost effective to do so.
(2) Such "inappropriate sites" will only pop up somewhere else if hammered down (think of that video parlour game with the mallet and furry creatures popping up and down through holes ...)
(3) They are. This new attempt is called "ISP Level Content Filtering", and who knows what the next attempt/effort might be called.
Personally, I reckon we are going to need A.I.s to drive this thing in the end.
Never mind "skynet", think "censornet". :)
regarDS
(1) The "inappropriate sites" are probably not in a country that makes it easy or as cost effective to do so.
(2) Such "inappropriate sites" will only pop up somewhere else if hammered down (think of that video parlour game with the mallet and furry creatures popping up and down through holes ...)
(3) They are. This new attempt is called "ISP Level Content Filtering", and who knows what the next attempt/effort might be called.
Personally, I reckon we are going to need A.I.s to drive this thing in the end.
Never mind "skynet", think "censornet". :)
regarDS
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt9
Are there any educated, rational supporters of this?
Yes, but you are never going to get the actual kind of debate you need while utilising Whirlpool as the forum for it.
regarDS
Yes, but you are never going to get the actual kind of debate you need while utilising Whirlpool as the forum for it.
regarDS
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
