|
Communism is upon us? Maybe I am going to need a lawyer soon?? (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Skipper |
| I agree that politicians shouldn't be using public funds to launch libel lawsuits, sure. But I disagree with the communism parallel. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
Thats fine. I just hope there is never a day when i can say I told you so.
The problem that i have is that i can see how things can potentially progress far into the future based on following patterns set out today. If we continue down this path we are in big trouble. |
|
|
| Skipper |
Hey, speaking of communism...
| quote: |
China is requiring personal computers sold in the country to carry software that blocks online pornography and other websites, potentially giving one of the world's most sophisticated censorship regimes even more control over the Internet.
The software's developer said yesterday the tool would give parents more oversight by preventing computers from accessing sites with pornographic pictures or language. Jinhui Computer System Engineering Co., which won a government contract to develop the “Green Dam-Youth Escort” filtering software, was compiling a database of sites to block.
Although porn sites are being targeted initially, the software could be used to block other websites, too, including those based on keywords rather than specific Web addresses.
Parents can also add their own sites to the blocking list, Zhang Chenmin, general manager of Jinhui, said.
“If a father doesn't want his son to be exposed to content related to basketball or drugs, he can block all websites related to those things,” Mr. Zhang said.
He said users could disable blocking of any site on the list or even uninstall the software completely, but they will not be able to see the full database. He said the software does not monitor or send data to third parties.
China, which has the world's largest population of Internet users at more than 250 million, also has among the world's tightest controls over the Internet.
Through such mechanisms as network-level filters installed at the nation's Internet service providers, the government routinely blocks political sites, especially ones it considers socially destabilizing such as sites that challenge the ruling Communist Party, promote democratic reform or advocate independence for Tibet.
The government also bans Internet pornography and this year launched a nationwide crackdown that led to the shuttering of more than 1,900 websites. Sites including Google and Baidu, China's most popular search engine, also have been criticized for linking to suspect sites.
John Palfrey, an Internet censorship expert at Harvard University, described the latest requirements as “a potential game changer in the story of Internet control,” by moving China's “Great Firewall” closer to the user, where censorship can be more effective.
Although users can unblock sites or uninstall the software, many won't bother or know how, Prof. Palfrey said. There's also the possibility of the software leaving traces, he said, giving users a false sense of security that the software blocks unwanted sites for them – or giving users enough uncertainty that they'll practise self-censorship.
“One of the most effective parts of China's controls is self-censorship, the perception that you are being watched or blocked,” Prof. Palfrey said in an interview from Washington.
And though the software isn't currently designed for monitoring usage, Prof. Palfrey said a future update could give it surveillance capabilities, something easier to implement once the basic software is already on personal computers.
A Washington-based industry trade group, the Computer & Communications Industry Association, denounced China's efforts “to build censorship capabilities right into the hardware.”
“Blocking access to pornography sounds like an acceptable goal, but the problem is that it's all too easy to use the same technology to expand the censorship,” the group's president, Ed Black, said in a statement.
|
|
|
|
| smuncky |
| quote: | Originally posted by Skipper
Hey, speaking of communism... |
sorry skipper, still not as bad as canada. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
We have something almost as bad. Its called hate speech laws. You can get arrested just for visiting web sites that arent government approved messages. I dont support hate or racism but i dont think its government's right to outlaw any ideas that arent mainstream.
I can totally see this same kind of legislation coming to canada though. People are very willing to give up their rights in exchange for very little. |
|
|
| Skipper |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
We have something almost as bad. Its called hate speech laws. You can get arrested just for visiting web sites that arent government approved messages. I dont support hate or racism but i dont think its government's right to outlaw any ideas that arent mainstream.
I can totally see this same kind of legislation coming to canada though. People are very willing to give up their rights in exchange for very little. |
lol, you are too much. It's called the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, not communism.
Only you thinks hate speech laws qualify as communism. Go burn a flag already. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Skipper
lol, you are too much. It's called the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, not communism.
Only you thinks hate speech laws qualify as communism. Go burn a flag already. |
Our charter is obviously severely flawed or not respected when laws such as the ones we have are allowed to be passed. |
|
|
| miketg23 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
Our charter is obviously severely flawed or not respected when laws such as the ones we have are allowed to be passed. |
Please provide source as to where it says in the criminal code one could be arrested for visiting a website. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
As with a lot of things, there is nothing specific in the criminal code as our judges are free to interpret it daily. This is the root failure of our constitution and rule of law as far as im concerned. There was a case a few years ago where a guy was found guilty of inciting hate for downloading material that was deemed "hate" by the hate speech laws. Apparently he hadnt been distributing it but by downloading he was considered to have reproduced it.
I wish i could remember the guys name so i could track it down. |
|
|
| miketg23 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
As with a lot of things, there is nothing specific in the criminal code as our judges are free to interpret it daily. This is the root failure of our constitution and rule of law as far as im concerned. There was a case a few years ago where a guy was found guilty of inciting hate for downloading material that was deemed "hate" by the hate speech laws. Apparently he hadnt been distributing it but by downloading he was considered to have reproduced it.
I wish i could remember the guys name so i could track it down. |
There would have to be some law that charges could be pressed against. Otherwise, there would be no crime and therefore no warrant. Although, this sounds like something that is possible, without anything to back it up, your argument is just hearsay. This conviction would have been appealed and possibly overturned. |
|
|
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
As with a lot of things, there is nothing specific in the criminal code as our judges are free to interpret it daily. This is the root failure of our constitution and rule of law as far as im concerned. There was a case a few years ago where a guy was found guilty of inciting hate for downloading material that was deemed "hate" by the hate speech laws. Apparently he hadnt been distributing it but by downloading he was considered to have reproduced it.
I wish i could remember the guys name so i could track it down. |
that's a bit different than getting "arrested just for visiting web sites that arent government approved messages", isn't it.
I suspect if you can provide the source, there will be other relevant details that were left out. |
|
|
| 7-4-7 |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Please. Jay may exaggerate and get his terminology mixed up, but it's no worse than the rhetoric we hear daily from the Left in general and the Miller/McGuinty apologists in particular. He's also very clearly socially liberal and only fiscally conservative, which is not at all "far right".
To those who are already far left of the centre line, anybody even a few feet to the right looks like a hysterical neocon wingnut, an image further reinforced by the dearth of ideological diversity in Ontario and especially in Toronto.
This isn't Jay's best writing by any means, but I think you're colouring the truth just as much as he is with a comment like this. |
Lets be clear; please.
Jay IS exaggerating. I assume you are agreeing with this considering you cited it. And by exaggerating, I stated my concern that 1 not everyone would fall for such exaggeration.
If his terminology is "mixed up" that is again stating that he is making errors in his already convoluted and polarized message.
The rhetoric is what makes politics alive and for most armchair politicians its the closest they will come to actually determining policy.
I didn't realize Jay needed a wing man even when the ship is going down. |
|
|
|
|
