|
how long is it before the internet is "policed" like the rest of society? (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| l]evil |
| its already happening (korea) |
|
|
| jdjd |
| quote: | Originally posted by MidnightClubber
The internet is being policed as we speak, but it's a war of the nerds. Think about it, constant anti-spam, anti-download, and security featuers to keep minors out of certain sites are always being implemented, upgraded and maintained, but with millions of users there will always be loopholes through any internet-based system.
That's why for instance they always release updates for anti-viruses, no matter what kind of measures they have set up to prevent trojans and intrusions onto computers there will always be the bored surfer itching to try out a new line of code he added to the latest virus.
In regards to downloading music, bitorrent, irc, and ftp's are near impossible to shut down. The only way they'll prevent mp3's from being leaked onto the internet they need to prevent people from ripping the cds. But to do so they need to stop making programs that allow you to do so, and any person with some computer programming knowledge can do that...
Complete restraint over the internet? Probably never, but if it does happen its for our children's children to worry about. For now free axs to 1337 s3>< etc.etc. |
I don't think they'd need to start shutting things down to take control. If a law is passed all they have to do is start picking off random people and get that on the news. Then watch all illegal sharing activity go up in smoke. Nobody is going to download at the risk of fines and jail time. It's alot easier to catch someone sharing files than it is to catch someone spreading a virus. Same goes with spammers, although the gov't doesn't care about spam, at least not at this rate, it's still manageable right now.
I'm suprised nothing has been done yet about cracked/hacked software. It's not even sharing, it's pure theft. |
|
|
| Blue. |
| Policed to that degree? Never, or I'd be in jail or bored of the internet entirely. |
|
|
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
canada also restricts free speach on the internet. Anything that the government deems as "hateful" can be prosecuted. Im sure many people in this very forum have broken canadian speech laws with some of their off colour humour and possibly racist implications. Punishment for this is a long long time in jail.
Yes its that easy!
...
scary eh?
Welcome to Canada
Dont think we are such a free country because we really arent.
|
Canada has merely extended existing restrictions on cetain forms of speech to the internet realm. you don't agree that censoring hate literature is a reasonable limit on freedom of speech? Why is everything so absolute for you?
btw, punishment is *potentially* a jail term, so ease up on the paranoia, lol. Intent is a signficant determinent on what charges (if any) get laid and (if successfully prosecuted) in determining a sentence.
i.e. no one on TA is going to jail anytime soon :rolleyes: :stongue: |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
Canada has merely extended existing restrictions on cetain forms of speech to the internet realm. you don't agree that censoring hate literature is a reasonable limit on freedom of speech? Why is everything so absolute for you?
btw, punishment is *potentially* a jail term, so ease up on the paranoia, lol. Intent is a signficant determinent on what charges (if any) get laid and (if successfully prosecuted) in determining a sentence.
i.e. no one on TA is going to jail anytime soon :rolleyes: :stongue: |
i dont agree with restricting ANY form of speech. If you wish to say the holocaust didnt happen you should be free to do so and i should be free to disagree or be disgusted by such comment.
ironically the gestapo used to arrest and put to death people in germany whos idea of the truth went against mainstream society and the government.
obviously our government doesnt go to that extreme. But whats the difference between arresting people in 1940's germany for expression of an alternate idea of belief than what we do here in canada today? |
|
|
| DigiNut |
It already exists in the form of a "national firewall" in China. The commies essentially censor any site that doesn't fit the party line.
The case of China is precisely why we will never see this kind of policing in a democratic nation. Once the technology is in place for the government to decide what people can and can't look at, there is no end to how that technology can be abused. The government doesn't even need to pass a bill - they just make a call and get someone to add a couple of lines to the firewall script. Everybody knows where "internet policing" technology will lead, and nobody with half a brain would stand for it - an elected government that tried to implement such a thing would be immediately voted out of office or perhaps even impeached.
On the other hand, we don't even have the necessary resources here to enforce the CAN-SPAM act. People love to spout on about how the laws haven't kept up with the technology, and perhaps that's true to an extent, but realistically, the nature of the internet is based on freedom of information and *by design* it doesn't really allow for any meaningful level of "policing". Unless there is one central internet gateway, which would equal total disaster (not to mention destruction of the free market), there is no chance of that ever changing. |
|
|
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
i dont agree with restricting ANY form of speech. If you wish to say the holocaust didnt happen you should be free to do so and i should be free to disagree or be disgusted by such comment.
ironically the gestapo used to arrest and put to death people in germany whos idea of the truth went against mainstream society and the government.
obviously our government doesnt go to that extreme. But whats the difference between arresting people in 1940's germany for expression of an alternate idea of belief than what we do here in canada today? |
are you ing kidding? :conf: that's not ironic at all...and it's completely irrelevant to this debate.
That you even mention Nazi Germany in this debate is actually quite offensive. There is no comparison between arbitrarily rounding up people based upon ethicity, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, physical health, and political ideology vs. censoring speech that incites hatred and/or violence.
Did Shadowolf hack into your account, by chance? That sounds like something he would say :rolleyes: |
|
|
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
It already exists in the form of a "national firewall" in China. The commies essentially censor any site that doesn't fit the party line.
The case of China is precisely why we will never see this kind of policing in a democratic nation. Once the technology is in place for the government to decide what people can and can't look at, there is no end to how that technology can be abused. The government doesn't even need to pass a bill - they just make a call and get someone to add a couple of lines to the firewall script. Everybody knows where "internet policing" technology will lead, and nobody with half a brain would stand for it - an elected government that tried to implement such a thing would be immediately voted out of office or perhaps even impeached.
On the other hand, we don't even have the necessary resources here to enforce the CAN-SPAM act. People love to spout on about how the laws haven't kept up with the technology, and perhaps that's true to an extent, but realistically, the nature of the internet is based on freedom of information and *by design* it doesn't really allow for any meaningful level of "policing". Unless there is one central internet gateway, which would equal total disaster (not to mention destruction of the free market), there is no chance of that ever changing. |
I agree with that...it will never happen here. Information already flows FAR too easily here for that to even to be covertly implemented by some rogue gov't plan (at least I'd like to think that's the case!) |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
are you ing kidding? :conf: that's not ironic at all...and it's completely irrelevant to this debate.
That you even mention Nazi Germany in this debate is actually quite offensive. There is no comparison between arbitrarily rounding up people based upon ethicity, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, physical health, and political ideology vs. censoring speech that incites hatred and/or violence.
Did Shadowolf hack into your account, by chance? That sounds like something he would say :rolleyes: |
why is it offensive?
Im not comparing the final outcome because obviously there is no comparing jail and deportation which happens here to outright murder which happened there. And people were not just rounded up for being a minority. Even blonde haired blue eyed german christians were arrested if they in any way said anything that went against what was to be officially believed. All you had to say was that you didnt agree with how the nazi party governed and you were finished. Many people forget this. The fact is that people were arrested for espousing beliefs that were against what the government and much of society believed which is exactly what is happening here.
you and i may not agree with what is said but that should not make it illegal. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
There is no comparison between arbitrarily rounding up people based upon ethicity, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, physical health, and political ideology vs. censoring speech that incites hatred and/or violence. |
Didn't notice this on the first pass but I think it deserves a response as well...
The trouble with the notion of "incitement" is that one never knows whether or not it "incites" violence until that violence has already happened - and even then, it's hard to definitively link cause and effect.
How does one create legislation against this without resorting to arbitrary speech codes? I think we may even be walking into Orwellian territory there. It's one of the burning philosophical questions raised by 1984 and even certain Hollywood movies like Minority Report - thought (and speech) may lead to action, but if a criminal action were to be prevented somehow (in this case by censorship), then of what significance is the mere thought? How do we know for sure that the criminal action was going to occur in the first place?
Holocaust deniers and other revisionist historians make me sick to my stomach. I think they should be ridiculed, laughed at, and generally be swept into the gutter by society at large. But society can handle that without censorship - we don't need someone in office telling us that yes, it's okay to ridicule these people because what they say is classified under "hate speech". I *KNOW* that they are full of , and I won't hesitate for a second to let everyone else know that they're full of .
So I don't agree that censorship is ever the answer, no matter how good or how necessary it may look in hindsight. We just don't know how society will be affected by words, and there is simply no objective means to classify what is "hate" speech or what might "incite" people. In my mind, AdScam should have incited a great deal of hate in Canadians, but surely no one believes that the results of the Gomery inquiry should have been censored... |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Holocaust deniers and other revisionist historians make me sick to my stomach. I think they should be ridiculed, laughed at, and generally be swept into the gutter by society at large. But society can handle that without censorship - we don't need someone in office telling us that yes, it's okay to ridicule these people because what they say is classified under "hate speech". I *KNOW* that they are full of , and I won't hesitate for a second to let everyone else know that they're full of .
So I don't agree that censorship is ever the answer, no matter how good or how necessary it may look in hindsight. We just don't know how society will be affected by words, and there is simply no objective means to classify what is "hate" speech or what might "incite" people. In my mind, AdScam should have incited a great deal of hate in Canadians, but surely no one believes that the results of the Gomery inquiry should have been censored...
|
exactly |
|
|
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Didn't notice this on the first pass but I think it deserves a response as well...
The trouble with the notion of "incitement" is that one never knows whether or not it "incites" violence until that violence has already happened - and even then, it's hard to definitively link cause and effect. |
it is somewhat of a unique charge...but I think that even the most liberal of societies can draw a reasonable line and account for novel situations on a case by case basis unsing that line as a foundation.
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
How does one create legislation against this without resorting to arbitrary speech codes? I think we may even be walking into Orwellian territory there. It's one of the burning philosophical questions raised by 1984 and even certain Hollywood movies like Minority Report - thought (and speech) may lead to action, but if a criminal action were to be prevented somehow (in this case by censorship), then of what significance is the mere thought? How do we know for sure that the criminal action was going to occur in the first place? |
I think that is a bit of an unreasonable extension...we're not looking to stop crime before it happens by prosecuting solely on the basis of intent (Minority Report)...and we're not talking about privacy and freedom issues on an Orwellian level.
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Holocaust deniers and other revisionist historians make me sick to my stomach. I think they should be ridiculed, laughed at, and generally be swept into the gutter by society at large. But society can handle that without censorship - we don't need someone in office telling us that yes, it's okay to ridicule these people because what they say is classified under "hate speech". I *KNOW* that they are full of , and I won't hesitate for a second to let everyone else know that they're full of .
So I don't agree that censorship is ever the answer, no matter how good or how necessary it may look in hindsight. We just don't know how society will be affected by words, and there is simply no objective means to classify what is "hate" speech or what might "incite" people. In my mind, AdScam should have incited a great deal of hate in Canadians, but surely no one believes that the results of the Gomery inquiry should have been censored... |
there is often no objective means to classify what is "abuse", "harassment" or "neglect" in countless cases, for example...does that mean we should not attempt to legislate against those things? |
|
|
|
|
