Public Filtering Comin' Like a Freight Train 15
MSNBC has a
good story
about the filtering bill which will almost certainly soon pass.
"It's curious that Republicans - typically fans of decentralized
government - would be interested in this bill, which puts an
educational decision into the hands of the federal government, a power
that typically rests in the hands of the locals. It would essentially
hold schools and libraries that use subsidies to get online (25,000 to
date, according to the Web site of the company that runs the program
for the government) hostage to the notion that filtering weeds out all
evil on the Net."
Well said. Welcome to the 21st century, where all public institutions will be censored by unaccountable corporations.
Filtering only works if.... (Score:3)
2. cacucasian porn is involved (for the "certain color range in images" filtering).
3. you use a grammar/syntax language engine to parse what's coming down the pipe to decide if it's insidious or not.
Until then, what gets filtered is what goes against someone's political agenda.
Another repeat story... (Score:1)
All bitching about repeat stories aside, though, it is interesting to note that the Christian Coalition and other right-wing pressure groups actually oppose this bill. Nobody wants this - the nimrods who sponsored this rider want it vetoed so they can blame Clinton (and by extension, Gore) for a government shutdown.
It will probably have minimal impact on the election, though, and this piece of shit won't survive ten minutes of court review. So in the end, it probably won't mean much, but it really chaps my ass that the people who are supposed to be representing my interests have nothing better to do.
Anyone interested in going in together on an island and seceding, drop me a line.
OK,
- B
Re:Filtering only works if.... (Score:2)
I don't actually have a problem with schools using a filter ... it's their choice, after all. I think it's a waste of money, but if local sentiment is dead-set on using it, then I think it's reasonable. However, I think that forcing it on them as a federal mandate is a very bad idea. These types of issues should be decided on an individual or local level.
Is there a problem? (Score:4)
I think it's like kids playing with guns. You may not own one, but the neighbor's kid always does.
Teach your kid good values, and you won't have to worry. As much.
Re:Stupid election year politics -- might be good. (Score:2)
Of course, your opinion only holds true if the Supreme Court is similarly configured, compared to today's Court, when this issue comes before them. If the next President's appointments bias the court toward Right-wing interpretations then this filtering bill may be upheld.
This isn't what they're talking about (Score:1)
The Biggest Point politicians forget... (Score:2)
For some reason, they don't realize that a ton of pr0n sites (and some of the best ones, in my book
For example...
US Government: "Hey, Holland! Shut down all the porn and pro-marijuana sites that end in
Dutch: "You're fooking kidding, right?"
The US has no jurisdiction over overseas sites, and better not try to pull any stunts to usurp power to do so ("Pull thehun.net or no more automobiles for you!")
And one more point...let's see the filters extract this link [pitt.edu] (WARNING! LINK CONTAINS EXPLICIT ASCII-ART! NOT SUITABLE FOR 90% OF
Re:Where There is a Will, There is a Way (Score:1)
what's wrong with this? (Score:1)
The problem is that the implementation can't match the promise. Filtering software lets tons of "bad" stuff through. Having it there doesn't keep pornography out. It only keeps some pornography out. So it really only gives parents a false sense of security. If I didn't understand the limitations of the software, I might let my kid go to the library and surf to his heart's content, not realizing that he still has access to a lot of stuff I don't want him to see. I have to be prepared for the fact that he may be viewing stuff I don't approve of at the library, whether it has software filters or not. I have to have the same vigilance that I have when he visits friends. I have to spend time with my kid, make sure we have open communication, and that he feels he can discuss difficult subjects with me. It puts a burden on me to be a good parent.
And then there is the issue of who decides what is "bad". It's been shown, by groups like peacefire [peacefire.org], that filtering software blocks a lot of stuff it shouldn't. It blocks health sites, political sites, sites of people or places whose names sounds dirty (like Cockburn, or Middlesex), sites of people who are critical of the filtering software company [zdnet.com]. Looking at the whole package, the problems outweigh the benefits.
Stupid election year politics -- might be good... (Score:3)
Now, as this is a big huge 1st Amendment issue, I fully expect someone to contest the case, whether the ACLU, EFF, or the various schools/libraries organizations around the country. And I really don't think that this case , as it stands, will hold up in the Supreme Court. Filtering technology as it is right now is a violation of free speech, and either the SC will nix the law, or force the development of better filtering software that actually *does* the job that is should do. If filters had a 99.999+% hit rate, and less than 0.001% failure rate using sites that, as deemed by the community, are either appropriate or inappropriate, then I would not have many qualms about using them at public terminals. But as with any first amendment challenge, one has to be careful to make sure this goes no farther than public terminals.
Re:Filtering only works if.... (Score:3)
What is needed to filter is an odd number of AIs (with above-human-average intelligence) that have been run through law school in perparation for becoming judges, and who have lived in the target community for a number of years. They must then "vote" on each page to decide if it is obscene or not. Anything less is not good enough.
---
Unfortunately... (Score:1)
Dutch: "You're fooking kidding, right?"
True, but I just read this [wired.com]. So much for the idea that American laws hold no water in other countries. Our corporate government will find any way to push itself on other countries when money is involved, it seems...
Shameless plug: That's why I'm voting Nader [votenader.org]!
-------
Re:This isn't what they're talking about (Score:2)
Then feed it through a text filter (e.g. Jar-Jargonizer, Lamer-speak, even Babelfish). I highly doubt that Cybernanny or Netwatcher et.al. would be able to block those types of sites out.
Even better idea -- feed some random page with a questionable URL through a ROT13 filter. See if any blockers try to un-ROT13 it and therefore block it. Claim they're using an unauthorized decryption routine and sue them under the DMCA.
Re:Filtering only works if.... (Score:1)
Seeing articles like this, i believe if you'd change that to read "with above-congressman-average intelligence" then we could make a committee of Eliza, SHLRDU, Pitr's AI [userfriendly.org]. Throw in an Abio and Sid's AI [userfriendly.org] if you want more than 3.
-----
Filtering Bill (Score:1)