tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536351741931918832.post3635798712380791951..comments2024-01-22T08:35:08.612+11:00Comments on Broadbanned Revolution - fight the philterphiles that be.: Government approved illegal pornographyJon Seymourhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10532362449090377707noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536351741931918832.post-40863187051555868892008-11-25T10:11:00.000+11:002008-11-25T10:11:00.000+11:00Very well put and in case it wasn't clear, I agree...Very well put and in case it wasn't clear, I agree with everything you say.<BR/><BR/>Even McMenamin concedes [ refer ABC talkback last Tuesday ] that filtering won't stop the hard core users. She is only concerned about the click-through users who get dragged into deeper and deeper trouble.<BR/><BR/>How many 404s will these users get before they start experimenting with the encrypted tunnels. Once they are in the encrypted tunnels, how do we know what they are going to do with their new found "digital freedom"?<BR/><BR/>My position is that it is a dangerous world out there and we should rely upon and encourage individual responsibilty. Perhaps we should teach Australians that "we cannot be<BR/>truly free unless we commit ourselves to a moral life". If they remain unconvinced, perhaps we should by them all a copy of Clive's <A HREF="http://www.clivehamilton.net.au/cms/index.php?page=home" REL="nofollow">book</A>. Oh the irony, it is so bittersweet. Must be all that iron.<BR/><BR/>"Think of the children" is undoubtedly polemic. I am just trying to show that it is polemic that can cut both ways.Jon Seymourhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10532362449090377707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536351741931918832.post-24809407002927720772008-11-25T09:46:00.000+11:002008-11-25T09:46:00.000+11:00It appears that "think of the children" is contagi...It appears that "think of the children" is contagious.<BR/><BR/>Do you think that website filtering is really going to have any effect on those people we have already been told are using encryption and P2P file sharing (terrorists, paedophiles and copyright pirates) to share their materials? Those networks (well, probably not the copyright pirates) are probably largely underground already and I think you are focussing on the wrong part of the argument.<BR/><BR/>Its not about network of pedophiles going underground, its about what the general public can rely upon in their filtered internet service. The point about implicit approval for things that are not filtered out is an interesting one and I've no doubt it will be tested one day. Do the filtering advocates assert that their filtering will work well enough to be relied upon (relieving the individual of responsibility) or do they claim that it cannot be relied upon (keeping responsibility with the individual)? <BR/><BR/>If it can't be relied upon, how do we measure the benefit that an imperfect system delivers? "if we only save one child..." is polemic, not an answer. I remain to be convinced that cutting off Australian demand for such materials would have a significant effect on production. The real first issue here is what can be done about production, and about the main distribution networks? Is it the visible networks that drive production or is it the underground ones? Is the filtering effort being spent on things that will have an effect outside of the world inhabited by pollsters, opinion piece writers and people who highly value net neutrality? Think of the children indeed... will any of this have a real effect?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com