The exact reverse can be argued. Due to the empowerment the internet has given to Joe Public, the enabling technologies which continue to come to market and the explosion in independent self expression Governments around the world are panicking into passing legislation which they hope will get the Genie back in the bottle. But frankly, they're pissing in the wind. Human ingenuity will win out over the nay sayers maybe for the first time in history because the development of tools is in OUR hands and the infrastructure is essentially beyond the control of individual governments.
The exact reverse can be argued. Due to the empowerment the internet has given to Joe Public, the enabling technologies which continue to come to market and the explosion in independent self expression Governments around the world are panicking into passing legislation which they hope will get the Genie back in the bottle. But frankly, they're pissing in the wind. Human ingenuity will win out over the nay sayers maybe for the first time in history because the development of tools is in OUR hands and the infrastructure is essentially beyond the control of individual governments.
So: Go child porn?
Sure, the only people it will 'deter' is the stupid first time viewers, and it will probably still let through 90%, so it'll be pointless, but it's hardly as though there is a hard-an-fast distinction between 'censorship' and 'things you're by law required not to look at or enjoy'. The only difference is that in this case you're afraid of the "what else"... Sure, it's possible to say that you think the threat is overblown, or even that you just don't care enough about systematic exploitation of minors to want to risk "free speech" abridgment, but it's hardly as though you really are able, willing and interested in "saying" everything you could
The things you talk about, and consider important whenever the right to "free speech" is brought up, are the things that society allows you to talk about, after all. I still see very few people who are willing to openly discuss their private or sexual lives with others, even though there is no 'real'/'obvious' reason not to want to talk about it at all (in a non-lame/infantile manner). Especially considering the fact that statistically, people are still unsatisfied with these lives, and education, or sharing experiences, tips and tricks, would certainly obviate or alleviate some of these problems/complaints.
Yet still people consider this a "private" matter, feel uncomfortable, and are afraid that their spouse will immediately be poached upon or will want to 'try out' others as soon as the subject is discussed openly (or somesuch. We humans have such active imaginations, especially when it comes to thinking up scenarios about what might go wrong when we change some rule or other. They're much like that CDU politician at that, although most just come up with these rationalizations after the fact, because they "just don't feel comfortable" even thinking about it.)
Anyway, the problem isn't that certain modes of "speech" are being disallowed or prosecuted for when done online, (because that also happens offline) the problem is that cultural conservatives exist, who generally don't believe in looking at effect studies before passing judgment on whatever it is they perceive as a danger.
Luckily these people die to be replaced by other conservatives who are trying to conserve a slightly later rule set (the one that they grew up with, rather than their parents, allowing us to change the topics of debate at least once or a few times per generation. Reactionaries, luckily, are few and far between, and most of the time far off the mark when it comes to being "accurate" in their portrayal of earlier 'values'.
Gun ownership is not so much about morality as it is about mortality. Same goes for wearing seat-belts. I guess it comes down to how you measure the public good. The conservatives want to assume that everybody is equal in their self-direction and responsibilities. The liberals want to measure the cost to the rest of us, when people can't be trusted to act wisely. It's interesting that conservatives see morality as something that can be imposed, despite evidence to the contrary (think war on drugs, abortion, or pretty much any other moral crusade), where as liberals think that self-determination and responsibility can be imposed.
It's moral authoritarianism that liberals find so heinous, and for good reason. A true moral standard is humble in its prescription for the behaviour of others. After-all, history is laced with the horrors of conventional wisdom gone mad.
What can also be argued is that people get the government they deserve. Regardless of the widely held view of technology professionals a large proportion of the population of Europe & Australia support the idea of government controlled censorship on the internet. Why did an American President get away with warrantless wire-tapping, when an extra-marital affair by a different President has badly scarred his reputation? Because many if not most Americans either don't see the risk in giving their governmen
the development of tools is in OUR hands and the infrastructure is essentially beyond the control of individual governments.
Unfortunately, the bullets are still in their hands. While we can whargarbl all day long on the internet, if a government really is concerned about shutting you down they will resort to the simplest, most effective, technological trick in the book: killing you. Take a good look at North Korea or China, these are examples of governments who have decided to keep control and aren't afraid to drive over a few piss-ant protesters with tanks.
This is why it's important to fight this stuff while we still have a government which we can effect with noise and votes, and not end up with an extra hole or two. It is far better to fight while the fighting is easy and winning very possible, because eventually you may reach a point where the fighting is hard and victory impossible.
Quite right, and in a country such as the U.S., where there is only a fast-diminishing distinction between corporate will and government will, what will be allowed to see and hear, not to mention speak and write, may well become subject to the fiat of a body or bodies quite apart from "the people". Consider the fact that, by many measures, the telecom lobby is the most powerful in Washington. Now consider that the telecoms do indeed hold the Internet's infrastructure in their hands. Now consider that for a just a bit longer, and then tell me that the Internet is safe from censorship.
"Once the legislation passes, police officials will have to draw up a list of web sites that feature child pornography and send the list to all telecommunications companies."
Might as well just make the list public knowledge. Anyone with the inclination to view the material will be able to find it easier with any list made.
"Once the legislation passes, police officials will have to draw up a list of web sites that feature child pornography and send the list to all telecommunications companies." Might as well just make the list public knowledge. Anyone with the inclination to view the material will be able to find it easier with any list made.
Incidentially this is one of the criticisms that practically all experts had. The experts were all ignored. One of the reasons some people now believe (and I tend in that direction) that this law is not about protecting children at all.
Believe? Anyone who has seen German politics for the last few years knows that this list is for many things, but protection of children is the smokescreen, at best.
I wonder whether they have been thinking this through to the end. It's a surefire way for backfiring.
Face it, the list will get out sooner or later. You have to hand that list to people you can't trust and who most likely do not agree with the censorship. I give it 2-3 weeks before you can read it up on wikileaks (for reference, see Australia). Then the minister for the interor can choose whether she wants to be pummeled from the right (if there is anything right of the CSU) or the left.
The right will clobber her for handing the pedos basically a shopping list.
The left will clobber her for listing sites that have nothing to do with child pornography but end up there for "questionable" (read: political) content.
In any way, this is certain to backfire on her. I wonder if she has any idea what she's doing here.
Not that I wouldn't want her to get kicked out of office, mind you...
In any way, this is certain to backfire on her. I wonder if she has any idea what she's doing here.
No, she doesn't. If anything outside of scientific experiments was ever strongly proven, then the fact that Ursula von der Leyen has no clue whatsoever about this topic she's been pushing.
She's stupid and/or mallicious, and very likely both. She should be forced to resign, and stripped of her pension.
Because they're not actually interested in eliminating kiddie porn, or protecting children, or any of the other reasons they're giving.
If they were, what you say is exactly what they'd do. When the discussion started, some activist picked the danish block list and called up or mailed all german ISPs that hosted a site listed on that list. Surprise, almost all of them got shut down, and very quickly.
Incidently, "delete instead of block" is the motto of the counter-movement - http://loeschenstattsperren.de/ [loeschenstattsperren.de]
Might as well just make the list public knowledge. Anyone with the inclination to view the material will be able to find it easier with any list made.
Easy solution: the list of places with child porn will not be shown to anyone. The telecoms will just have to block those sites on the secret list without seeing the list. Is that too much to ask to protect our children?!? JESUS CHRIST WHY WON'T YOU PEOPLE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!?
In the movie Euro Trip there was a scene where the guy goes to meet his German girfriend and a boy does the Hitler salute with the moustache. It raised an uproar, especially in Germany and many German politicians swore up and down that they had excercised the Ghost of Hitler. Have they? If i remember the massive book "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich", Nazi movies in theaters were do devoid of audience that Wilhelm Frick, the Minister of the Interior, issued a stern warning against "treasonable behavior on the part of cinema audiences." First you start by censoring what's available. Then you start by slowly ratcheting up the local propaganda, and then you outlaw any and all unapproved broadcasts and networks. German politicians are treading the thinnest line possible between Liberty and Hitler.
German politicians are treading the thinnest line possible between Liberty and Hitler.
Because banning video games is just a thin line's-crossing away from Naziism...
I'm pretty sure the next steps away from liberty after banning violent games don't involve invading neighboring nations, forcing ethnic and religious groups to wear specific symbols, rounding them up and killing them, and what not.
How do you ban video games on certain criteria? What prevents you from banning books, newspapers and and meetings based on same criteria? If video games are banned because of violence in them, then books also need to be banned. So do newspapers. So do meetings which discuss such newspapers. Where do start and where do we end? Because while Germans as individuals are the best of the human race, as a group they are capable of the worst behavior. And no, i didn't say this.
Hitler's first steps in power were not to start war. It took him six years to attack Poland, even though he had always planned to do that.
What he did during those six years was consolidate his power by silencing dissenting voices. Censorship was one of the methods. Control of the media was another one.
Our german parliament has revived both of these yesterday.
Which means that no, we're not yet in a totalitarian state, but yes, the groundworks are being laid (again).
They don't need to kill you for real anymore. They can just make you unemployable by having you breach some obscure child protection law tacked on to this internet filtering legislation.
Virtual death is now more serious, as you have to live with the consequences for the rest of your life.
"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation"
"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation"
I'll leave you to guess who I'm quoting.
You're quoting Daniel Lapin [wikipedia.org]. This is an excerpt from an essay of his [aapsonline.org] which pretends to be a letter sent from the dead by Hitler to Julius Streicher [wikipedia.org].
It builds on Hitler's advocacy in Mein Kampf that the sick / handicapped should be deemed unfit for procreation [vt.edu]:
[The state] must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. It must see to it that only the healthy beget children; that there is only one disgrace: despite one's own sickness and deficiencies, to bring children into the world, and one highest honor: to renounce doing so.
As such, the Hitler-attributable part of the quote is wildly out of context. But this fictional letter does a great job of pointing out where this "think of the children" is going.
What is the deal with these people? What is their major problem with video games? Did their digital mothers get spawn camped and teabagged when they were children?
What is the deal with these people? What is their major problem with video games? Did their digital mothers get spawn camped and teabagged when they were children?
As far as I can tell, this is political incompetence and not a general feeling in the population. Gemany is smaller (80 million) and hence has about one quarter the school shootings that the US has (caveat: this is my personal pet theory). The politicians have zero understanding or idea on why these happen and blame something else that they do not understand at all, namely violent videogames. The general population does not care either way, so this is a topic politicians use to give the appearance of "doing something".
Incidentially, for the left wing leaders (SPD), this law could well be the beginning of their demise. There was a public petition against it with something like 135'000 signatures, which is very, very impressive. The way the government (left-right coalition) just ignored all expert testimony and all citicism could well loose them the younger generations completely.
Incidentially, ignoring all experts and all criticism is becoming a trend for the german government. A very dangerous trend with one stupid law being followed by the next. Especially the Internet is something these people are not using and do not understand at all. There are many that have web-pages printed out for them by their secretaries and that is the level they are acting on.
As to the nature of these "blocks": They will be DNS redirections, i.e. trivially easy to bypass. There is already one court decision freeing an ISP from doing such a block for other illegal content (3rd Reich propaganda, I believe), because the court found these blocks to be ineffectve. It appears it took the judge less than 10 Minutes to find out how to circumvent such blocks and he was not impressed.
The way the government (left-right coalition) just ignored all expert testimony and all citicism could well loose them the younger generations completely.
It already did. So, by politician logic, they stopped caring about us at all.
The SPD (one of the two major parties) recently formed a technical consulting committee which helped the party leaders understand Internet and other modern technologies, and helped them campaign in these new mediums, etc.
Most of the committee walked out on them in disgust after yesterday's vote.
In Germany, too, there were killing sprees in schools. And just like everywhere, people were scrambling to find a reason.
Well, if you ask me, when you look for reasons, look where the sprees happen: In schools. Would you go to a school if you went on a rampage with the goal to kill people? I'd use the subway on a monday morning. Or the shopping mall right before Christmas. WAY more people to mow down.
They were not rampages. That was simply and plainly acts of revenge. Revenge for years of bullying, revenge for years of (preceived or real) favorism of teachers, revenge for being outcast, revenge for being picked on.
But you can't blame the kids that bullied, mobbed and picked on him. They were killed! Accusing kids that were shot is political suicide.
So you need a scapegoat. Without one, people keep looking for a reason. If you can present one, you have a reason and people stop looking.
So, what could we use? We need something our voters don't understand, won't miss if we outlaw it, and it would be nice if it's something their kids do and they don't approve of.
And since the music industry has the better lobbyists...
If you still needed proof that our political system is crap, this is it.
The vast majority of politicians who voted "yes" on this topic could not even explain the base technologies if you asked them. Nor do they understand how their censorship law works, or what its consequences are. Despite having this pointed out to them repeatedly.
It's becoming rapidly clear, especially with the economic crisis happening at the same time, that we're ruled by people who're simply not good at ruling, nor much else for that matter. Their expertise is in politics, i.e. getting into power, not in anything that matters once you are in power.
If anyone shoots them all, I'll be there to applaud. And yes, I write that with my name on it. These people have nothing to lose and they act like it. While I'm not for violence, I'm starting to believe that at least the danger of violence and personal consequences is required or else our politicians will destroy us all - or, if you think about climate change, kill us all.
Funny how it takes but weeks to throw billions at mismanaged banks, but it's taken years and no end in sight to agree on matters vital to the survival of the damn planet.
In this news, we see the real issue: That the slippery slope of making some information illegal is too steep. The primary issue that free global flow of information will do is dramatically reduce the need for centralized government power at the country level, in many ways. If people allow their governments to start making some information illegal, even for good reasons, then the norm of censorship will be accepted and expanded.
Frankly, the main driver behind making such images illegal seems to be that we don't have the resources or the effort to catch people who actually harm children - so instead they make the next closest thing police *can* find illegal. This is lazy police work.
I believe that a free and open society would work best if there were no restrictions on *access* to information once it is available. Laws would only restrict behaviors: The bits are not the issue, human behavior is. Thus, no image or stream of bits would ever be illegal (as I see it), only *actions* that people take that directly result in harm to other people. This would make the job of police much harder, yes, but the benefits become obvious quickly when reading this news.
"With 389 yes, 128 no and 18 withheld votes the government passed the so called "Zensursula" bill today with 535 politicians voting in total. Now the plans to repeal on grounds of unconstitutionality begin.
It's a black day for the digital community and will no doubt have repercussions from tech-savvy voters for the two ruling parties in the upcoming elections.
We've achieved quite a bit with the #zensursula campaign and we can continue to build on this, get better at spreading our message and eventually change this bad policy. I'm happy that the articles here on Netzpolitik have been given a voice in the press and in the minds of everyday citizens. This new information-central world of communication brings us a new degree of openness and we are slowly learning how to use our new digital tools and open source principles effectively. Every day we grow stronger and we'll continue to define and breathe life into these digital communities. Many people are becoming more political and are beginning to share their political views with others, both on the net and in the analog world. This is fun, it's creative and it's a worthwhile democratic activity, so join in!
"
The link at the end isn't quite so positive. It asks a lot of the same questions that we asked here on/. yesterday and gives a nice overview of
the things that were done to try to fight this bill. The first paragraph reads:
"After the passing into law of the 'Zensursula-infrastructure' there are undoubtedly many people out there who are feeling disappointed. What more could we have done that we didn't do in the last few months and years? How big does a movement have to be before it's successful? Our group has grown incredibly, so why doesn't anyone seem to understand us?"
I'd do the rest but my translation skills aren't the best and it's already time for me to be getting to class. It's a great article though.
The German government, like almost all governments, goes to great expense to train hundreds of thousands of people to kill other people, and requires them to use real weapons and live ammunition. Yet, they want to ban violent video games because THAT might lead to actual violence.
If by "violent video games", you mean "violent fantasies of power and grandeur", your point changes.
I do disagree with banning games, but your analogy doesn't attack the logic they are using. There are people alive in Germany right now who remember being caught up in the mythic ideals leading their nation, willingly and excitedly, into war all across Europe and beyond. You can't use arguments about why banning video games is wrong, because they aren't worried about the games per se. You have to explain why the games are different from the Nazi propaganda which so thoroughly scarred their national psyche that the effects are still felt to this day.
Personally, I'd point out that the games aren't ideological, so they don't really push the same sort of emotional buttons that the Nazi idealism did. Even so, I suspect the nation still has an understandable aversion to the glorification of violence. I guess the counter-argument there is that the people playing the games don't bear those psychological scars, being so far removed in time from the war, sort of like how most Americans today don't really have an emotional connection to the great depression and thus aren't as frugal about money (although current events may be changing that a bit).
I don't wether to agree or disagree with your point. Rather I'll try to complement it.
"violent fantasies of power and grandeur" is, indeed, a natural wish that probably lurks into our reptilian brain. It is a natural inclination of humans and the cause of many evils. I can understand that the government tries to tune it down, but unless we do brain surgery on every newborn, it will fail.
It can, however, provide ways to fullfill "violent fantasies of power and grandeur" that harms no one, that doesn't require to invent ennemies in the population or to run in the streets with a crowbar. Games provide such a way. In a game I can kill hundreds of ennemies per second, I can manage a kingdom, I can wage a war, I can do kung fu, without hurting anyone. The government does not want less violent games, it wants more.
But some unfortunate people have a hard time discerning the border between reality and fiction. More frequently, some people will think that the self-image of power and grandeur that they build in games can be transposed in reality, leading to various violent behavior. What the government wants, in complement with violent games, is a mandatory psychology class for all students that explains the basics of human behavior. How ego works, the various bias we have when perceiving others and ourselves, the values we transpose from fantasies to the real world, and yes, what we tend to crave for: "power and grandeur" and how almost every media play on that desire to addict us.
If only Germany had protected its citizens from violent video games in the 1930's, imagine how many lives would have been saved!
I'm confused... your point here is "This is one of the countries that started WW2, so they have no right to ban violent videogames?" Or was it "WW2 was not caused by videogames, so clearly videogames can never be blamed for real life violence?"
two-fold, really: germany gets absolutely no benefit of the doubt on censorship, and there are much more important things to worry about than video games.
Because "you lied" is a very slippery slope attack for politicians. Every politician lied at some point, and when someone opens that venue, he will get replies likewise.
For the same reason you don't get to see politicians using the promises of their opponents from years past against them. Have you ever wondered why no party ever used the slogans of their opponents against them (as in "see what they promised you last election and now think what you got")?
Maybe because the last thing they want is the voter to
I'm fairly sure there is. But do you think he survives long in that shark pool? More over, do you think he gets elected (yes, that essentially leads to 'people are stupid')?
Also, rest assured that even the most honest politician will be caught in that "you lied" trap. Even the most honest man "lies", at least from an objective point of view, if he has incomplete information. Ask a person from times medieval whether the Earth is the center of the universe and he will, objectively, lie to you. If you held ele
It indeed may be able to reduce the amount of child porn watched in Germany.
The current expert consent is that it will have zero effect. These will be DNS blocks which are trivially circumvented by using a different DNS server. You could use an open DNS server in a different country or simply run your own resolving server.
The thing I'm worried about is the fact that once you started censoring something, the threshold to censor something else falls. Once you have started, you may easily start censoring some other things, just like those killer games that were mentioned. First the porn, then the games and what next?
Pretty much anybody with some Internet competence is convinced that this is exactly the intention behind this law. Also there are plans to record anybody trying to access a blocked website and start investigating them (read: storm their homes, confiscate all thier computer equipment and telling the neighbours you are a likely a child-pornography consumer), since "they tried to access child pornography", which is a crime in Germany. Looks like an effort to establish a reign of fear. I predict that offering commercial anonymity proxies for webbrowsing to germans could be a good business in the next few years.
It won't reduce the amount at all. The reasons are simple, and please excuse when I use filesharing as a parallel. They actually share a few traits: First, both are illegal. Second, both use the internet as a staple medium for the transfer of content. Third, both consist of groups of people that tend to aid each other due to the "siege mentality" associated with it.
In other words, it is quite unlikely that this will achive anything in the sense of blocking child porn at all. Aside of various YouTube videos
Quick, extend this law to Tetris (Score:5, Funny)
some of the blocks have a very phallic shapes. Like for instance:
#####
#
Eew... Think of the children!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Some German magazine was quicker. Latest cover:
http://www.titanic-magazin.de/uploads/pics/0612-tetris.jpg [titanic-magazin.de]
("25 years of tetris: Who stops this killer game?")
or not! (Score:5, Interesting)
The golden era is over. We're all doomed.
The exact reverse can be argued. Due to the empowerment the internet has given to Joe Public, the enabling technologies which continue to come to market and the explosion in independent self expression Governments around the world are panicking into passing legislation which they hope will get the Genie back in the bottle. But frankly, they're pissing in the wind. Human ingenuity will win out over the nay sayers maybe for the first time in history because the development of tools is in OUR hands and the infrastructure is essentially beyond the control of individual governments.
Parent
Re:or not! (Score:5, Insightful)
The golden era is over. We're all doomed.
The exact reverse can be argued. Due to the empowerment the internet has given to Joe Public, the enabling technologies which continue to come to market and the explosion in independent self expression Governments around the world are panicking into passing legislation which they hope will get the Genie back in the bottle. But frankly, they're pissing in the wind. Human ingenuity will win out over the nay sayers maybe for the first time in history because the development of tools is in OUR hands and the infrastructure is essentially beyond the control of individual governments.
So: Go child porn?
Sure, the only people it will 'deter' is the stupid first time viewers, and it will probably still let through 90%, so it'll be pointless, but it's hardly as though there is a hard-an-fast distinction between 'censorship' and 'things you're by law required not to look at or enjoy'. The only difference is that in this case you're afraid of the "what else"... Sure, it's possible to say that you think the threat is overblown, or even that you just don't care enough about systematic exploitation of minors to want to risk "free speech" abridgment, but it's hardly as though you really are able, willing and interested in "saying" everything you could
The things you talk about, and consider important whenever the right to "free speech" is brought up, are the things that society allows you to talk about, after all. I still see very few people who are willing to openly discuss their private or sexual lives with others, even though there is no 'real'/'obvious' reason not to want to talk about it at all (in a non-lame/infantile manner). Especially considering the fact that statistically, people are still unsatisfied with these lives, and education, or sharing experiences, tips and tricks, would certainly obviate or alleviate some of these problems/complaints.
Yet still people consider this a "private" matter, feel uncomfortable, and are afraid that their spouse will immediately be poached upon or will want to 'try out' others as soon as the subject is discussed openly (or somesuch. We humans have such active imaginations, especially when it comes to thinking up scenarios about what might go wrong when we change some rule or other. They're much like that CDU politician at that, although most just come up with these rationalizations after the fact, because they "just don't feel comfortable" even thinking about it.)
Anyway, the problem isn't that certain modes of "speech" are being disallowed or prosecuted for when done online, (because that also happens offline) the problem is that cultural conservatives exist, who generally don't believe in looking at effect studies before passing judgment on whatever it is they perceive as a danger.
Luckily these people die to be replaced by other conservatives who are trying to conserve a slightly later rule set (the one that they grew up with, rather than their parents, allowing us to change the topics of debate at least once or a few times per generation. Reactionaries, luckily, are few and far between, and most of the time far off the mark when it comes to being "accurate" in their portrayal of earlier 'values'.
Parent
Conventional wisdom ain't that great (Score:4, Insightful)
It's moral authoritarianism that liberals find so heinous, and for good reason. A true moral standard is humble in its prescription for the behaviour of others. After-all, history is laced with the horrors of conventional wisdom gone mad.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:or not! (Score:5, Informative)
Unfortunately, the bullets are still in their hands. While we can whargarbl all day long on the internet, if a government really is concerned about shutting you down they will resort to the simplest, most effective, technological trick in the book: killing you. Take a good look at North Korea or China, these are examples of governments who have decided to keep control and aren't afraid to drive over a few piss-ant protesters with tanks.
This is why it's important to fight this stuff while we still have a government which we can effect with noise and votes, and not end up with an extra hole or two. It is far better to fight while the fighting is easy and winning very possible, because eventually you may reach a point where the fighting is hard and victory impossible.
Parent
Re:or not! (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Tetris pieces (Tetrinos?) have only 4 blocks.
GP was clearly referring to the "pervert edition" of tetris, with increased, err, size.
Locks only keep honest people honest (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Locks only keep honest people honest (Score:5, Insightful)
"Once the legislation passes, police officials will have to draw up a list of web sites that feature child pornography and send the list to all telecommunications companies." Might as well just make the list public knowledge. Anyone with the inclination to view the material will be able to find it easier with any list made.
Incidentially this is one of the criticisms that practically all experts had. The experts were all ignored. One of the reasons some people now believe (and I tend in that direction) that this law is not about protecting children at all.
Parent
Re:Locks only keep honest people honest (Score:5, Insightful)
Believe? Anyone who has seen German politics for the last few years knows that this list is for many things, but protection of children is the smokescreen, at best.
Parent
Re:Locks only keep honest people honest (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder whether they have been thinking this through to the end. It's a surefire way for backfiring.
Face it, the list will get out sooner or later. You have to hand that list to people you can't trust and who most likely do not agree with the censorship. I give it 2-3 weeks before you can read it up on wikileaks (for reference, see Australia). Then the minister for the interor can choose whether she wants to be pummeled from the right (if there is anything right of the CSU) or the left.
The right will clobber her for handing the pedos basically a shopping list.
The left will clobber her for listing sites that have nothing to do with child pornography but end up there for "questionable" (read: political) content.
In any way, this is certain to backfire on her. I wonder if she has any idea what she's doing here.
Not that I wouldn't want her to get kicked out of office, mind you...
Parent
Re:Locks only keep honest people honest (Score:5, Insightful)
In any way, this is certain to backfire on her. I wonder if she has any idea what she's doing here.
No, she doesn't. If anything outside of scientific experiments was ever strongly proven, then the fact that Ursula von der Leyen has no clue whatsoever about this topic she's been pushing.
She's stupid and/or mallicious, and very likely both. She should be forced to resign, and stripped of her pension.
Parent
Re:Locks only keep honest people honest (Score:5, Insightful)
Instead if trying to filter the websites, why don't they try to close them down?
Parent
Re:Locks only keep honest people honest (Score:5, Informative)
Because they're not actually interested in eliminating kiddie porn, or protecting children, or any of the other reasons they're giving.
If they were, what you say is exactly what they'd do. When the discussion started, some activist picked the danish block list and called up or mailed all german ISPs that hosted a site listed on that list.
Surprise, almost all of them got shut down, and very quickly.
Incidently, "delete instead of block" is the motto of the counter-movement - http://loeschenstattsperren.de/ [loeschenstattsperren.de]
Parent
Re:Locks only keep honest people honest (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Might as well just make the list public knowledge. Anyone with the inclination to view the material will be able to find it easier with any list made.
Easy solution: the list of places with child porn will not be shown to anyone. The telecoms will just have to block those sites on the secret list without seeing the list. Is that too much to ask to protect our children?!? JESUS CHRIST WHY WON'T YOU PEOPLE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!?
Dr.Goebbels would love this (Score:4, Interesting)
In the movie Euro Trip there was a scene where the guy goes to meet his German girfriend and a boy does the Hitler salute with the moustache.
It raised an uproar, especially in Germany and many German politicians swore up and down that they had excercised the Ghost of Hitler.
Have they?
If i remember the massive book "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich", Nazi movies in theaters were do devoid of audience that Wilhelm Frick, the Minister of the Interior, issued a stern warning against "treasonable behavior on the part of cinema audiences."
First you start by censoring what's available. Then you start by slowly ratcheting up the local propaganda, and then you outlaw any and all unapproved broadcasts and networks.
German politicians are treading the thinnest line possible between Liberty and Hitler.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
German politicians are treading the thinnest line possible between Liberty and Hitler.
Because those are the only two possible options...
Re:Dr.Goebbels would love this (Score:4, Insightful)
German politicians are treading the thinnest line possible between Liberty and Hitler.
Because banning video games is just a thin line's-crossing away from Naziism...
I'm pretty sure the next steps away from liberty after banning violent games don't involve invading neighboring nations, forcing ethnic and religious groups to wear specific symbols, rounding them up and killing them, and what not.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How do you ban video games on certain criteria?
What prevents you from banning books, newspapers and and meetings based on same criteria?
If video games are banned because of violence in them, then books also need to be banned. So do newspapers. So do meetings which discuss such newspapers.
Where do start and where do we end?
Because while Germans as individuals are the best of the human race, as a group they are capable of the worst behavior. And no, i didn't say this.
Re:Dr.Goebbels would love this (Score:5, Interesting)
You've not read your history books, it seems.
Hitler's first steps in power were not to start war. It took him six years to attack Poland, even though he had always planned to do that.
What he did during those six years was consolidate his power by silencing dissenting voices. Censorship was one of the methods. Control of the media was another one.
Our german parliament has revived both of these yesterday.
Which means that no, we're not yet in a totalitarian state, but yes, the groundworks are being laid (again).
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Virtual death is now more serious, as you have to live with the consequences for the rest of your life.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
...many German politicians swore up and down that they had excercised the Ghost of Hitler.
Why would they want to do that? Do ghosts even need exercise?
History repeats itself..... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll leave you to guess who I'm quoting.
Re:History repeats itself..... (Score:5, Insightful)
"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation"
I'll leave you to guess who I'm quoting.
You're quoting Daniel Lapin [wikipedia.org]. This is an excerpt from an essay of his [aapsonline.org] which pretends to be a letter sent from the dead by Hitler to Julius Streicher [wikipedia.org].
It builds on Hitler's advocacy in Mein Kampf that the sick / handicapped should be deemed unfit for procreation [vt.edu]:
[The state] must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. It must see to it that only the healthy beget children; that there is only one disgrace: despite one's own sickness and deficiencies, to bring children into the world, and one highest honor: to renounce doing so.
As such, the Hitler-attributable part of the quote is wildly out of context. But this fictional letter does a great job of pointing out where this "think of the children" is going.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah, it's also spelled with an 'ie'.
Honestly (Score:3, Funny)
What is the deal with these people? What is their major problem with video games? Did their digital mothers get spawn camped and teabagged when they were children?
Re:Honestly (Score:5, Interesting)
What is the deal with these people? What is their major problem with video games? Did their digital mothers get spawn camped and teabagged when they were children?
As far as I can tell, this is political incompetence and not a general feeling in the population. Gemany is smaller (80 million) and hence has about one quarter the school shootings that the US has (caveat: this is my personal pet theory). The politicians have zero understanding or idea on why these happen and blame something else that they do not understand at all, namely violent videogames. The general population does not care either way, so this is a topic politicians use to give the appearance of "doing something".
Incidentially, for the left wing leaders (SPD), this law could well be the beginning of their demise. There was a public petition against it with something like 135'000 signatures, which is very, very impressive. The way the government (left-right coalition) just ignored all expert testimony and all citicism could well loose them the younger generations completely.
Incidentially, ignoring all experts and all criticism is becoming a trend for the german government. A very dangerous trend with one stupid law being followed by the next. Especially the Internet is something these people are not using and do not understand at all. There are many that have web-pages printed out for them by their secretaries and that is the level they are acting on.
As to the nature of these "blocks": They will be DNS redirections, i.e. trivially easy to bypass. There is already one court decision freeing an ISP from doing such a block for other illegal content (3rd Reich propaganda, I believe), because the court found these blocks to be ineffectve. It appears it took the judge less than 10 Minutes to find out how to circumvent such blocks and he was not impressed.
Parent
Re:Honestly (Score:5, Informative)
The way the government (left-right coalition) just ignored all expert testimony and all citicism could well loose them the younger generations completely.
It already did. So, by politician logic, they stopped caring about us at all.
The SPD (one of the two major parties) recently formed a technical consulting committee which helped the party leaders understand Internet and other modern technologies, and helped them campaign in these new mediums, etc.
Most of the committee walked out on them in disgust after yesterday's vote.
Parent
Re:Honestly (Score:5, Insightful)
This takes a while to explain.
In Germany, too, there were killing sprees in schools. And just like everywhere, people were scrambling to find a reason.
Well, if you ask me, when you look for reasons, look where the sprees happen: In schools. Would you go to a school if you went on a rampage with the goal to kill people? I'd use the subway on a monday morning. Or the shopping mall right before Christmas. WAY more people to mow down.
They were not rampages. That was simply and plainly acts of revenge. Revenge for years of bullying, revenge for years of (preceived or real) favorism of teachers, revenge for being outcast, revenge for being picked on.
But you can't blame the kids that bullied, mobbed and picked on him. They were killed! Accusing kids that were shot is political suicide.
So you need a scapegoat. Without one, people keep looking for a reason. If you can present one, you have a reason and people stop looking.
So, what could we use? We need something our voters don't understand, won't miss if we outlaw it, and it would be nice if it's something their kids do and they don't approve of.
And since the music industry has the better lobbyists...
Parent
proof of system failure (Score:5, Insightful)
If you still needed proof that our political system is crap, this is it.
The vast majority of politicians who voted "yes" on this topic could not even explain the base technologies if you asked them. Nor do they understand how their censorship law works, or what its consequences are. Despite having this pointed out to them repeatedly.
It's becoming rapidly clear, especially with the economic crisis happening at the same time, that we're ruled by people who're simply not good at ruling, nor much else for that matter. Their expertise is in politics, i.e. getting into power, not in anything that matters once you are in power.
If anyone shoots them all, I'll be there to applaud. And yes, I write that with my name on it. These people have nothing to lose and they act like it. While I'm not for violence, I'm starting to believe that at least the danger of violence and personal consequences is required or else our politicians will destroy us all - or, if you think about climate change, kill us all.
Funny how it takes but weeks to throw billions at mismanaged banks, but it's taken years and no end in sight to agree on matters vital to the survival of the damn planet.
the slippery slope of "illegal information" (Score:5, Insightful)
In this news, we see the real issue: That the slippery slope of making some information illegal is too steep. The primary issue that free global flow of information will do is dramatically reduce the need for centralized government power at the country level, in many ways. If people allow their governments to start making some information illegal, even for good reasons, then the norm of censorship will be accepted and expanded.
Frankly, the main driver behind making such images illegal seems to be that we don't have the resources or the effort to catch people who actually harm children - so instead they make the next closest thing police *can* find illegal. This is lazy police work.
I believe that a free and open society would work best if there were no restrictions on *access* to information once it is available. Laws would only restrict behaviors: The bits are not the issue, human behavior is. Thus, no image or stream of bits would ever be illegal (as I see it), only *actions* that people take that directly result in harm to other people. This would make the job of police much harder, yes, but the benefits become obvious quickly when reading this news.
How long until the blacklist will be on wikileaks? (Score:3)
3 days? One week?
And it's only DNS based AFAIK.
This is exactly ... (Score:4, Insightful)
... why the PIRATE party (I hope they come up with a snazzy backronym for that) can expect to get my vote in the elections next fall.
Re:This is exactly ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Rough translation of the second link (Score:4, Interesting)
It's a black day for the digital community and will no doubt have repercussions from tech-savvy voters for the two ruling parties in the upcoming elections.
We've achieved quite a bit with the #zensursula campaign and we can continue to build on this, get better at spreading our message and eventually change this bad policy. I'm happy that the articles here on Netzpolitik have been given a voice in the press and in the minds of everyday citizens. This new information-central world of communication brings us a new degree of openness and we are slowly learning how to use our new digital tools and open source principles effectively. Every day we grow stronger and we'll continue to define and breathe life into these digital communities. Many people are becoming more political and are beginning to share their political views with others, both on the net and in the analog world. This is fun, it's creative and it's a worthwhile democratic activity, so join in!
" The link at the end isn't quite so positive. It asks a lot of the same questions that we asked here on
"After the passing into law of the 'Zensursula-infrastructure' there are undoubtedly many people out there who are feeling disappointed. What more could we have done that we didn't do in the last few months and years? How big does a movement have to be before it's successful? Our group has grown incredibly, so why doesn't anyone seem to understand us?"
I'd do the rest but my translation skills aren't the best and it's already time for me to be getting to class. It's a great article though.
So let me get this straight ... (Score:4, Informative)
The German government, like almost all governments, goes to great expense to train hundreds of thousands of people to kill other people, and requires them to use real weapons and live ammunition. Yet, they want to ban violent video games because THAT might lead to actual violence.
Yeah, makes sense.
Calculator Porn? (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:What Might Have Been (Score:4, Insightful)
If by "violent video games", you mean "violent fantasies of power and grandeur", your point changes.
I do disagree with banning games, but your analogy doesn't attack the logic they are using. There are people alive in Germany right now who remember being caught up in the mythic ideals leading their nation, willingly and excitedly, into war all across Europe and beyond. You can't use arguments about why banning video games is wrong, because they aren't worried about the games per se. You have to explain why the games are different from the Nazi propaganda which so thoroughly scarred their national psyche that the effects are still felt to this day.
Personally, I'd point out that the games aren't ideological, so they don't really push the same sort of emotional buttons that the Nazi idealism did. Even so, I suspect the nation still has an understandable aversion to the glorification of violence. I guess the counter-argument there is that the people playing the games don't bear those psychological scars, being so far removed in time from the war, sort of like how most Americans today don't really have an emotional connection to the great depression and thus aren't as frugal about money (although current events may be changing that a bit).
Parent
Re:What Might Have Been (Score:5, Insightful)
"violent fantasies of power and grandeur" is, indeed, a natural wish that probably lurks into our reptilian brain. It is a natural inclination of humans and the cause of many evils. I can understand that the government tries to tune it down, but unless we do brain surgery on every newborn, it will fail.
It can, however, provide ways to fullfill "violent fantasies of power and grandeur" that harms no one, that doesn't require to invent ennemies in the population or to run in the streets with a crowbar. Games provide such a way. In a game I can kill hundreds of ennemies per second, I can manage a kingdom, I can wage a war, I can do kung fu, without hurting anyone. The government does not want less violent games, it wants more.
But some unfortunate people have a hard time discerning the border between reality and fiction. More frequently, some people will think that the self-image of power and grandeur that they build in games can be transposed in reality, leading to various violent behavior. What the government wants, in complement with violent games, is a mandatory psychology class for all students that explains the basics of human behavior. How ego works, the various bias we have when perceiving others and ourselves, the values we transpose from fantasies to the real world, and yes, what we tend to crave for: "power and grandeur" and how almost every media play on that desire to addict us.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I rather wonder what atrocities could have been avoided if some people had a virtual outlet for their delusions of grandeur or their sadistic drive.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If only Germany had protected its citizens from violent video games in the 1930's, imagine how many lives would have been saved!
I'm confused... your point here is "This is one of the countries that started WW2, so they have no right to ban violent videogames?" Or was it "WW2 was not caused by videogames, so clearly videogames can never be blamed for real life violence?"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What Might Have Been (Score:4, Funny)
Did you know that there's a direct correlation between the decline of Spirograph and the rise in gang activity?
Think about it.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because "you lied" is a very slippery slope attack for politicians. Every politician lied at some point, and when someone opens that venue, he will get replies likewise.
For the same reason you don't get to see politicians using the promises of their opponents from years past against them. Have you ever wondered why no party ever used the slogans of their opponents against them (as in "see what they promised you last election and now think what you got")?
Maybe because the last thing they want is the voter to
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm fairly sure there is. But do you think he survives long in that shark pool? More over, do you think he gets elected (yes, that essentially leads to 'people are stupid')?
Also, rest assured that even the most honest politician will be caught in that "you lied" trap. Even the most honest man "lies", at least from an objective point of view, if he has incomplete information. Ask a person from times medieval whether the Earth is the center of the universe and he will, objectively, lie to you. If you held ele
Re:But what next? (Score:4, Insightful)
It indeed may be able to reduce the amount of child porn watched in Germany.
The current expert consent is that it will have zero effect. These will be DNS blocks which are trivially circumvented by using a different DNS server. You could use an open DNS server in a different country or simply run your own resolving server.
The thing I'm worried about is the fact that once you started censoring something, the threshold to censor something else falls. Once you have started, you may easily start censoring some other things, just like those killer games that were mentioned. First the porn, then the games and what next?
Pretty much anybody with some Internet competence is convinced that this is exactly the intention behind this law. Also there are plans to record anybody trying to access a blocked website and start investigating them (read: storm their homes, confiscate all thier computer equipment and telling the neighbours you are a likely a child-pornography consumer), since "they tried to access child pornography", which is a crime in Germany. Looks like an effort to establish a reign of fear. I predict that offering commercial anonymity proxies for webbrowsing to germans could be a good business in the next few years.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It won't reduce the amount at all. The reasons are simple, and please excuse when I use filesharing as a parallel. They actually share a few traits: First, both are illegal. Second, both use the internet as a staple medium for the transfer of content. Third, both consist of groups of people that tend to aid each other due to the "siege mentality" associated with it.
In other words, it is quite unlikely that this will achive anything in the sense of blocking child porn at all. Aside of various YouTube videos