07-23-2013, 06:11 AM
|
|
|
Confirmed User
Industry Role:
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,629
|
Censorship is the devil.
From reddit:
Quote:
In reality this has nothing to do with child protection. It's about having the legal capability to filter things. Child protection is just the most convenient excuse and the one you can least object to.
The same happened in Germany (the argument though was "child porn" rather than child protection of looking at porn) - luckily the public outcry blocked the program (for now).
In Denmark such a blacklist already exists[1] . Let's look at the steps:
We block child porn.
We block sites that could contain child porn (Pirate Bay...)
We block sites that sell drugs
We block gambling sites
"In 2012 Internet service providers (ISPs) and copyright holders in Denmark agreed on a framework where all ISPs will block access to copyright-infringing content if one of the providers is ordered to do so by a court. The Danish Ministry of Culture plans to work with ISPs and rights holder groups to "formalise" the agreement in a "written Code of Conduct"."
...
The situation is very simple: Once you filter something it is very easy to either openly or secretly filter something more. You just change a small part of the law or, better even, just some minor administrative regulation. Or you just, you know, do it and when someone complains you say it was an accident[2] . Also take a look at the list of sites blocked in Denmark[3] or Australia[4] (at your own risk, hello PRISM). Or just at this passage from an ArsTechnica article[5] :
In Finland, for instance, a man who runs a website arguing that the blacklist approach is ineffective was called in for questioning last year after publishing "a list of a few hundred censored sites." His own site was then placed on the blacklist, which means that visitors from Finland are greeted by a message saying that the site they are trying to reach contains illegal images.
|
I thought this was a very astute point. |
|
|