Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
Internet freedoms restrained - SOPA/PIPA/OPEN/ACTA/CETA/PrECISE-related updates
40hz:
I'll leave this one to my betters to see if this law is a Good Thing or not.
-TaoPhoenix (November 07, 2012, 11:57 AM)
--- End quote ---
Most times it's less an issue of the law as written - and more a matter of how it's interpreted (and abused) in practice.
In Canada's case, I think only time and future judicial decisions will show whether it was a good thing or not.
TaoPhoenix:
I'll leave this one to my betters to see if this law is a Good Thing or not.
-TaoPhoenix (November 07, 2012, 11:57 AM)
--- End quote ---
Most times it's less an issue of the law as written - and more a matter of how it's interpreted (and abused) in practice.
In Canada's case, I think only time and future judicial decisions will show whether it was a good thing or not.
-40hz (November 07, 2012, 02:59 PM)
--- End quote ---
Though the "tenor of the news" counts for a lot too. For example in the bills in the title of the thread, The Internetz rose up with an "OhDearGawdBBQ No!". Whereas this one seems all "look, it's moderate for the little guy!"
40hz:
Though the "tenor of the news" counts for a lot too.
-TaoPhoenix (November 07, 2012, 05:34 PM)
--- End quote ---
Glad it still does somewhere. :(
IainB:
Loss of Internet freedoms "for the best possible reasons and for the greater good".
In 2007 the Australian government announced its intention to introduce compulsory filtering/blocking of the Australian Internet for traffic containing child-related pornography, including what's generally called "child abuse imagery".
I recall at the time being surprised at a very thought-provoking and reasoned post on a website (I think, but am not sure, that it might have been ArsTechnica or Slashdot, though I cannot find the post now) that this might be the first time that they (the writer) would have to come out on the side of allowing child-related pornography - because the proposed filtering was unworkable/infeasible and could only lead to a great loss of Internet freedom for everyone.
Then in 2009 there were reports that though there had been problems with the prototype/trial filtering, it was likely to be implemented.
In ArsTechnica on 2012-11-09 there is a post that: Australia comes to its senses, abandons Internet filtering regime.
Looks like the filtering will be abandoned and instead:
Canberra says it will use Interpol's "worst of" list to block child abuse sites.
--- End quote ---
Relevant to this subject there are two interesting posts in Falkvinge about the potential for unintended consequences arising from the "illegalisation" of child porn:
* 1. Three Reasons Possession Of child Porn Must Be Re-Legalized In The Coming Decade
* 2. Child Porn Laws Aren’t As Bad As You Think. They're Much, Much Worse.
IainB:
Amazing: US imposes sanctions on Iran for Internet censorship
One wonders whether this might now mean that we have to re-define the term "hypocrisy".
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version