In a message dated 3/25/2009 1:34:36 PM Pacific Standard Time, thomas.dalton@gmail.com writes:
I don't think the IWF will make that mistake again. I never thought I'd see so many people being so outspokenly against a charity dedicated to fighting child pornography!>>
That response misses the point. This "Charity" operates as a black box, not only censoring but refusing to acknowledge that their acts are hidden, unknowable and possibly arbitrary.
We need this level of censorship? No. What this "charity" should do, is operate in an open manner with appropriate levels of communication with the public it claims to be serving.
Big brother is not what we crave. It's what we seek to destroy. It's what we should all seek to destroy. This charity needs to step forward, apologize for their indecency and change their method of operation.
Will Johnson
************** Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make dinner for $10 or less. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000001)
2009/3/25 WJhonson@aol.com:
That response misses the point. This "Charity" operates as a black box, not only censoring but refusing to acknowledge that their acts are hidden, unknowable and possibly arbitrary. We need this level of censorship? No. What this "charity" should do, is operate in an open manner with appropriate levels of communication with the public it claims to be serving.
The IWF was created by the ISPs to keep the government from bugging them. The IWF's biggest mistake was arguably thinking they should actually attempt to do the impossible, rather than just claiming to. Everyone who knows about them despises them.
- d.
2009/3/25 WJhonson@aol.com:
In a message dated 3/25/2009 1:34:36 PM Pacific Standard Time, thomas.dalton@gmail.com writes:
I don't think the IWF will make that mistake again. I never thought I'd see so many people being so outspokenly against a charity dedicated to fighting child pornography!>>
That response misses the point. This "Charity" operates as a black box, not only censoring but refusing to acknowledge that their acts are hidden, unknowable and possibly arbitrary.
We need this level of censorship? No. What this "charity" should do, is operate in an open manner with appropriate levels of communication with the public it claims to be serving.
Big brother is not what we crave. It's what we seek to destroy. It's what we should all seek to destroy. This charity needs to step forward, apologize for their indecency and change their method of operation.
No, I didn't miss the point. The point is that IWF will not block access to Wikipedia again, so there is no problem with accessing it being compulsory for school children. Censorship of the internet is a completely different point and not one relevant to this thread.
2009/3/25 WJhonson@aol.com:
That response misses the point. This "Charity" operates as a black box, not only censoring but refusing to acknowledge that their acts are hidden,
No the ISPs know they are being given the list and external audits have been carried out.
unknowable
False. We know quite a bit about their actions.
and possibly arbitrary.
Only insofar as the law is.
We need this level of censorship? No. What this "charity" should do, is operate in an open manner with appropriate levels of communication with the public it claims to be serving.
It is serving ISPs. And there is quite a high level of communication between it and the ISPs. It talks to the government time to time and has dealings with the media (which for the most part isn't interested).
Big brother is not what we crave. It's what we seek to destroy. It's what we should all seek to destroy.
Err no we are looking to create an encyclopedia. Government surveillance is a separate issue.