Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11
1508 posts

Uber Geek


  # 1768921 22-Apr-2017 14:33
One person supports this post
Send private message

shanehobson:

 

 

 

All filtering solutions can be circumvented and so any filtering tools applied need to accompanied by education, regulation & legislation. You're unlikely to implement porn blocking on your home internet without also having a discussion with your teenage son about what you're doing and why you're doing it.

 

 

 

 

In the examples you have seen, what has the education aspect looked like? 





Try Vultr using this link and get us both some credit:

 

http://www.vultr.com/?ref=7033587-3B


2541 posts

Uber Geek


  # 1768932 22-Apr-2017 14:57
2 people support this post
Send private message

I'd say there is definitely a good case for this as an opt in/out option in a ' normal' home (ie one where the kids have more IT knowledge than their parents). As geeks we (mostly) have the knowledge, expertise and conceptual understanding of how to use technology to support our ethical stance on our home internet censorship.

However, is say 95+ % of parents would likely opt IN on such a scheme in order to protect their own children as they are not personally equipped and able to do so personally (and probably quite happy to admit this).

Another worthwhile idea is to simply make it opt OUT as then people who don't even know it is an option would also be 'protected' but easily presented this option when calling their ISP to report a 'fault' page (which could easily be programmed with user friendly information about how to get the block removed... much like interleaving I guess? If you don't know they're doing it and you can't see a difference then there's no worries, but for those that know and decide to have it switched off, they bear the consequences?

1924 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Subscriber

  # 1768953 22-Apr-2017 16:08
Send private message

freitasm:

 

Rikkitic: As the Washington Post says, Democracy dies in darkness.  

 

 

QFT.

 

 

???





________

 

Antonios K

 

Click to see full size


1508 posts

Uber Geek


  # 1768955 22-Apr-2017 16:17
One person supports this post
Send private message

antoniosk:

 

freitasm:

 

Rikkitic: As the Washington Post says, Democracy dies in darkness.  

 

 

QFT.

 

 

???

 

 

Quoted For Truth





Try Vultr using this link and get us both some credit:

 

http://www.vultr.com/?ref=7033587-3B


15019 posts

Uber Geek


  # 1769005 22-Apr-2017 19:24
Send private message

I would be for an opt in system. Eg for families with children and teenagers etc. but I suspect not too many would take it up, and if people want to do it, they already can. But there are many things such as problems with guns and drugs, as well as society problems in general with things such as bullying, that I see as far higher priority in this country.

BDFL - Memuneh
64198 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator
Trusted
Geekzone
Lifetime subscriber

  # 1769008 22-Apr-2017 19:35
4 people support this post
Send private message

Why single out porn? Why not filter religious material?

Not all porn is bad. There isn’t anything illegal about porn. I am not sure the OP ever mentioned a specific topic of filtering/censorship.




4153 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

  # 1769016 22-Apr-2017 19:49
One person supports this post
Send private message

I don't think it's possible to have an intelligent debate on this until there's a proposal to look at. Some people will cheerfully state that they don't mind the govt filtering out child porn and snuff videos, and others will fixate on the slippery slope argument ending up with legitimate news sites blocked.

 

The appropriate level of mandated filtering is somewhere in the middle of that but any rational, sensible positions are going to be ignored or shouted down by the zealots at either extreme. It'll be amusing to watch at least.

 

It should be noted that participation with the DCEFS is still voluntary. Personally I'd be happier if it was compulsory so that all providers were on an even footing for the next time they choose to block something outside their mandate. (Or when it happens due to a breakdown in their processes)

 

Cheers - N

 

 

 

 





--

 

Please note all comments are the product of my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.


2627 posts

Uber Geek


  # 1769048 22-Apr-2017 20:57
5 people support this post
Send private message

Talkiet:

 

The appropriate level of mandated filtering is somewhere in the middle of that but any rational, sensible positions are going to be ignored or shouted down by the zealots at either extreme. It'll be amusing to watch at least.

 

 

Sorry, but the appropriate level of filtering is not somewhere in the middle.

 

In any society claiming to be free and democratic, the ability to freely exchange and impart information and views etc is a cornerstone of that society. Censorship directly attacks that freedom. Therefore the bar has to be set incredibly high, in terms of actual provable and widespread harm, before it can be justified. For child porn I personally feel that test is met. For other stuff, not much. Grubby pictures and video made by consenting adults, horror movies, novels, euthanasia and suicide discussions and political tracts certainly don't meet the test. The fact that you or I might find some views, discussions, artworks (which is in the eye of the beholder) or entertainment unsettling, unpleasant or even stomach-churning doesn't mean they should be banned. To do that, you have to prove serious harm, and you have to do so beyond any reasonable doubt. This isn't zealotry, it's a defence of fundamental civil liberties and the cornerstone of a free and democratic society.

 

Or as Voltaire is oft claimed to have put it: "Monsieur l’abbé, je déteste ce que vous écrivez, mais je donnerai ma vie pour que vous puissiez continuer à écrire." (Monsieur l’abbé, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write).

 

You only have to look at countries like Iran, East Germany, 1980s Romania, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, and North Korea to see what happens when free speech is substantially suppressed.


4153 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

  # 1769051 22-Apr-2017 21:01
Send private message

I rest my case.

 

Cheers - N

 

 





--

 

Please note all comments are the product of my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.


15019 posts

Uber Geek


  # 1769056 22-Apr-2017 21:06
Send private message

It all depends on peoples standards, cultures and religious background (if applicable). Many people find online shopping on Christmas and Easter offensive, so should they be able to filter out shopping websites on those days? If the government were to filter at a top level, it would be a very slippery road to government censorship. Already our news is full of fake news, so if filtering is done on content, it could be open to abuse, so the government only lets you see what they want you to see. It also potentially blocks free speech. If you look at some forms of social media platform, they have a lot of power to potentially filter news, and only let people see what they want them to see.


Fat bottom Trump
10372 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

  # 1769091 22-Apr-2017 22:22
3 people support this post
Send private message

Talkiet:

 

I rest my case.

 

Cheers - N

 

 

 

 

What case? All you have said is that filtering should be mandated at a level ('in the middle') guaranteed to exclude as many people as possible. Why go for the lowest common denominator? My specific proposal, since that is what you demand for a rational debate, is that there be no mandated filtering at all and that people be trusted to decide for themselves what they should and shouldn't see. Or do you feel that certain sectors of the population are incapable of making such choices, meaning you have to decide for them?

 

 





I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 


1523 posts

Uber Geek


  # 1769093 22-Apr-2017 22:26
3 people support this post
Send private message

I wish I could filter on Geekzone.

4153 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

  # 1769096 22-Apr-2017 22:38
One person supports this post
Send private message

Rikkitic:

 

Talkiet:

 

I rest my case.

 

Cheers - N

 

 

 

 

What case? All you have said is that filtering should be mandated at a level ('in the middle') guaranteed to exclude as many people as possible. Why go for the lowest common denominator? My specific proposal, since that is what you demand for a rational debate, is that there be no mandated filtering at all and that people be trusted to decide for themselves what they should and shouldn't see. Or do you feel that certain sectors of the population are incapable of making such choices, meaning you have to decide for them?

 

 

 

 

Well you're nit-picking but my choice of words was pretty poor... More accurately I should have said "somewhere between those 2 extremes"...  And yes, some sectors of society are incapable of making appropriate choices. In any case, if you support mandated filtering for ANY instance (child porn) then you already aligned with my view.

 

How is this conceptually any different from video and printed media censorship? Sure, internet based stuff is MUCH harder to police and far more transient, but is it really intrinsically that different from current legislation around censorship and objectionable publications?

 

Cheers - N

 

 





--

 

Please note all comments are the product of my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.


8462 posts

Uber Geek


  # 1769126 23-Apr-2017 08:52
One person supports this post
Send private message

Talkiet:

 

 

 

How is this conceptually any different from video and printed media censorship? Sure, internet based stuff is MUCH harder to police and far more transient, but is it really intrinsically that different from current legislation around censorship and objectionable publications?

 

 

 

 

Yes it is conceptually very different in practice.  It may have been possible in the past for a censor to individually review and classify every book or magazine, movie print for release, or DVD coming in to the country. 

 

It's not physically possible for a censor to individually review and classify billions of web pages.  It's futile because those pages can change, the worst offenders (kiddy porn etc) would probably continue to do what they do on the internet now, essentially unimpeded except for possible risk of being caught by "sting" operations or surveillance, they're also probably using other than the WWW.

 

People can also bring terabytes of data into the country in person on devices.  Would be very nice - but practically impossible - to "search" every device and flash memory chip coming in, if you wanted to wait years in a line while customs/immigration at the border checked every device from every passenger on an A380, demanded keys to every encrypted file then examined the contents.

 

If there was to be some government regulation filtering access to content, my preference would be that all ISPs should offer "family safe" filtering as an option, that option is on by default, and that service should carry no additional charge. 


4153 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

  # 1769127 23-Apr-2017 08:55
Send private message

Fred99:

 

Talkiet:

 

 

 

How is this conceptually any different from video and printed media censorship? Sure, internet based stuff is MUCH harder to police and far more transient, but is it really intrinsically that different from current legislation around censorship and objectionable publications?

 

 

 

 

Yes it is conceptually very different in practice.  It may have been possible in the past for a censor to individually review and classify every book or magazine, movie print for release, or DVD coming in to the country. 

 

It's not physically possible for a censor to individually review and classify billions of web pages.  It's futile because those pages can change, the worst offenders (kiddy porn etc) would probably continue to do what they do on the internet now, essentially unimpeded except for possible risk of being caught by "sting" operations or surveillance, they're also probably using other than the WWW.

 

People can also bring terabytes of data into the country in person on devices.  Would be very nice - but practically impossible - to "search" every device and flash memory chip coming in, if you wanted to wait years in a line while customs/immigration at the border checked every device from every passenger on an A380, demanded keys to every encrypted file then examined the contents.

 

If there was to be some government regulation filtering access to content, my preference would be that all ISPs should offer "family safe" filtering as an option, that option is on by default, and that service should carry no additional charge. 

 

 

Fair enough. We disagree then.

 

Cheers - N

 

 





--

 

Please note all comments are the product of my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.


1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic

Twitter and LinkedIn »



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:





News »

Kiwi workers still falling victim to old cyber tricks
Posted 12-Aug-2019 20:47


Lightning Lab GovTech launches 2019 programme
Posted 12-Aug-2019 20:41


Epson launches portable laser projector
Posted 12-Aug-2019 20:27


Huawei launches new distributed HarmonyOS
Posted 12-Aug-2019 20:20


Lenovo introduces single-socket servers for edge and data-intensive workloads
Posted 9-Aug-2019 21:26


The Document Foundation announces LibreOffice 6.3
Posted 9-Aug-2019 16:57


Symantec sell enterprise security assets for US$ 10.7 billion to Broadcom
Posted 9-Aug-2019 16:43


Artificial tongue can distinguish whisky and identify counterfeits
Posted 8-Aug-2019 20:20


Toyota and Preferred Networks to develop service robots
Posted 8-Aug-2019 20:11


Vodafone introduces new Vodafone TV device
Posted 7-Aug-2019 17:16


Intel announces next-generation Intel Xeon Scalable processors with up to 56 cores
Posted 7-Aug-2019 15:41


Nokia 2.2 released in New Zealand
Posted 5-Aug-2019 19:38


2degrees celebrating ten years
Posted 5-Aug-2019 05:00


Sure Petcare launches SureFeed microchip pet feeder
Posted 2-Aug-2019 17:00


Symantec Threat Intelligence: revival and rise of email extortion scams
Posted 2-Aug-2019 16:55



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.


Support Geekzone »

Our community of supporters help make Geekzone possible. Click the button below to join them.

Support Geezone on PressPatron



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.