You'Dont'Tube In Aussy

[KynloStephen66515]

Well, it seems that hackers from around the globe have got a little bit annoyed with the Australian government, and it's decision to filter out web content, including, but not limited to, Youtube Video's, by means of DDoS (Distributed Denial of Service)

Obviously, here at DC, we do not condone these type of attacks but you cannot help but feel bad for the people of countries like Australia, who's government seem to want to halt freedom of information and speech by simply dis-allowing their users from viewing such info.

I dunno about anybody else, but I feel that certain governments are starting to follow Kim Jong-il's well known way of thinking "If I don't like it, they will never see it"

IMO freedom of speech and information should be now, and always, allowed on the Internet, because it is a free-nation, not governed by any specific person, group, or country (no matter how much some people claim they do).

**edit**

Whoops, forgot to put a source link on haha:

here you go: http://news.bbc.co.u...chnology/8513073.stm

[JavaJones]

France seems to be considering similar laws. Fighting child porn is the most often cited excuse, and while I find that subject to be abhorrent, I don't think this is anything close to a good way to fight it. More likely it's just being used as leverage to get filtering systems in place that can filter anything that any interested party might want to, e.g. copyright violation. Remember there's no money to be made fighting child porn, but it's one of the most powerful concepts that can be envoked to influence the mind of the average person and trump any reason or sense they might otherwise apply to the subject at hand.

- Oshyan

[KynloStephen66515]

Can't see how claiming to be aiming to remove 'child porn' could be the correct way to go, especially when blocking Youtube videos, would this mean they will remove ALL the videos containing everybody under 18? if so, Youtube will have about 15 videos left on it...sounds like an interesting website...

I am fully understanding, and behind, removing all links to child porn from the internet, but the big-shots like google, say it is not possible, which is a blatant lie! it would actually be very simple if the correct people are given the correct tools under the correct supervision of the correct authorities (Hackers accross the world working in cahoots with the governments of the world) this way, any child porn, would be pretty much, instantly removed from all websites.

[JavaJones]

Hmm, I'm actually in agreement with Google here - how do you remove "child porn" and distinguish it from, say, Dakota Fanning's performance in Hounddog, or a family's pictures of their baby having a bath and splashing around in good fun? The thing about child "porn" is that in some sense the pornography can be *in the eye of the beholder*! To a pedophile, an innocent picture of a kid in the bath could probably be arousing, but for the family that took it, it's just cute. These are just a few examples, there are much more challenging gray areas out there that I don't care to delve into. The point is it'd be really, really hard to do this in an automated way, and if you tried to empower certain people to do it, well then you just have the morals of a few being enforced on the many, and that's not good either.

Bottom line the best way to fight child porn - and anything unsavory - is to find the source. Trying to cut off the means of distribution is difficult at best, particularly when said distribution conduit is *largely* used for many other legitimate things (the Internet).

- Oshyan

[KynloStephen66515]

Looking at it in that light, I certainly agree, but we seem to have dived a little off topic, Ive always said that google should trace any searches made for such things, logging IP's and other data (some people forget to hide) and then submitting all that info to select agencies.  Obviously this logging should only be used for these extreme circumstances.

[JavaJones]

But then who decides what is "extreme". Personally I don't think it should be Google's responsibility to do this.

Anyway, 'net filtering is bad, mmmkay?

- Oshyan

[KynloStephen66515]

Yes net filtering is bad, but in regards to who's responsibility it is to do it, is a reasonable question, and I was only using Google as an example, due to them being one of the worlds biggest search engines.  Obviously, it is ultimately the responsibility of the user, but some people cannot be trusted, so logging search terms such as 'child-porn' is a logical approach, but the problem is, will they honestly stop with only that subject, because if they start, will they ever stop?!