×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Senate Bill to Subsidize Anti-Censorware Research

jamie posted more than 11 years ago | from the rider-to-support-the-perverted-arts dept.

Censorship 182

Senators Wyden (D-Ore.) and Kyl (R-Ariz.) introduced the Global Internet Freedom Act earlier this month, setting aside $60 million over two years "to develop and deploy technologies to defeat Internet jamming and censorship." Of course they don't mean libraries and schools in this country -- they're talking about countries like China, as Kyl et al. explain in a National Review article a few days ago. I guess it wasn't confusing enough to (1) subsidize censorware and (2) criminalize researching it -- we also need to (3) subsidize researching it. How about forbidding American corporations from trading censorware goods or services to these "repressive governments," wouldn't that be a good start? Update: 10/30 03:37 GMT by J : Here's the Wired story from early this month on the version that was introduced in the House.

(Sen. Wyden also teamed up last month with Sen. Cox (R-Calif.) on a little bitty resolution standing up for your fair use rights before the tank parade of the DMCA.)

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

182 comments

congress outlaws LINUX (-1)

IAgreeWithThisPost (550896) | more than 11 years ago | (#4555131)

Citing the possible use of linux by Al-Qaeda, John Asscroft today stated, "It's a great day in America", as the Senate followed up the House vote on bill H3285 to erradicate Linux from American soil.

More details to come.

Re:congress outlaws LINUX (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4555168)

Oh man, do I agree with this post.

Linux is for schoolchildren with too much time on their hands. Real techies use BSD to get the job done.

Russian Hostage Jokes (-1)

an Anonymous Cowboy (539199) | more than 11 years ago | (#4555382)

Q. Why do they have 5 or more exits in a Russian theater? A. Because people are just dying to get out! Q. Why don't people like to sit by Russian soldiers in the movie theaters? A. They have bad gas Q. Why did the Russian theater patrons have to buy bigger clothes? A. Because they were carried out of the theater on a stretcher Q. Why did the Russian cinema fan fall out of his seat? A. Because he was dead

fp (-1, Troll)

Mattygfunk1 (596840) | more than 11 years ago | (#4555133)

fuck u all bitches and hoes

Re:fp (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4555157)

fuck u all bitches and hoes

hoe (n.): A tool with a flat blade attached approximately at a right angle to a long handle, used for weeding, cultivating, and gardening.

Yeah, fuck the flat blades! Oh, and the bitches!

Re:fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4555418)

You forgot:

bitch (n.): A female canine animal, especially a dog.

Yeah.. fuck those female dogs...

um.. that came out wrong.

Real Money . . . (2, Insightful)

JJ (29711) | more than 11 years ago | (#4555146)

This is just a few congressmen trying to CYA. Sixty million sounds like a lot of money to you and me, but to a government employee, its just a drop in the bucket.

what do you know about money?? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4555312)

you broken down nyggaz!

Kimora, now going off to hang with her niggahz!
http://www.askheartbeat.com/cgibin/ultim atebb.cgi

The contradiction (5, Insightful)

rknop (240417) | more than 11 years ago | (#4555147)

The contradiction comes from the fact that our government-- especially Congress-- is not a single-headed entity, but a multi-headed entitiy pulling in lots of different directions. As a result, lots of contradictory noises will get made.

Indeed, the more often it acts like a single-headed entity pulling in one direction, the scarier it is. We come in danger of "groupthink", and worrying things like expression divergent opinions become labelled as "unpatriotic", and scary laws like the DMCA (which passed without dissent) or parts of the US PATRIOT act (I'm thinking the library stuff here) getting passed.

-Rob

Re:The contradiction (4, Insightful)

garcia (6573) | more than 11 years ago | (#4555174)

the contradiction is: when the poster said, "How about forbidding American corporations from trading censorware goods or services to these "repressive governments," wouldn't that be a good start?"

Re:The contradiction (4, Insightful)

Hard_Code (49548) | more than 11 years ago | (#4555185)

Unfortunately the same fear and cynicism of politicians actually having concrete goals and real positions (for better or for worse) drives...well, group-Un-think - lots of noise is generated over trivialities and blatent ploys for superficial popularity. I would really hope that meaningful change and change for the better are not mutually exclusive sets. I would gladly trade two robotic teleprompter politicians for two passionate yet diametrically opposed ones.

Re:The contradiction (4, Interesting)

Ponty (15710) | more than 11 years ago | (#4555790)

Actually Sen. Wyden seems to have a good handle on practicality WRT the Internet. He co-sponsored the CANSPAM (Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing) bill, the Online Privacy Protection Act which would limit the way web sites and online services collect and disseminate personal information about individuals without their consent, and an encryption bill that allowed the export of 64- and 128-bit software.

I'm not going to comment on Sen. Kyl.

Re:The contradiction (4, Insightful)

Bingo Foo (179380) | more than 11 years ago | (#4555351)

There is no contradiction, and the source of the dual policy is not the multi-headedness of government.

If one understands the concepts of public and private, familial and foreign, sacred and profane; if one acknowledges that these concepts exist concurrently in the world; and if one actually recognizes freedom and repression when presented with them, then one must exercise some subtlety in policy making.

You are right that "groupthink" can be dangerous in extremes, but agreement about where to go on the majority of issues is what drives civilized society. Labeling popular agreement as "groupthink" in order to dismiss it is intellectuially lazy. It is also intellectual laziness to hold the kind of absolutist positions on "privacy," "censorship," "intellectual property," and "Microsoft" that we all see daily on Slashdot. Your judgment is just tying the ship's wheel to the gunwales and going belowdecks for a nap.

Re:The contradiction (5, Insightful)

Montreal Geek (620791) | more than 11 years ago | (#4555383)

I don't see any contradiction.

The fact that a governement wants to encourage restricting avaliable information to the subset it approves (via censorship) is not incompatible to wanting to defeat the same mechanism in place in other places to coerce that subset to be the same as theirs.

Of course, the US governement would want to make sure that no other country can do the same. This way, the insignificant other 95% of the human race can bask in the greatness that is the (properly sanitized) Internet as defined by them.

This is all self consistent. (And scary).

--MH

Porn: Animal Sex (Horse) (-1)

xdfgf (460453) | more than 11 years ago | (#4555160)

Sister taffy is a big dyke [voy.com]

Party Animal

Hello Marky,

The party I mentioned was in N Beach. The house itself was up on a ridge
on a hill overlooking the ocean; made a nice view of the bay. The house
was owned by a self-proclaimed hair stylist and his partner who always
bragged that he only worked one day a week, 48 hours straight. The house
was quite large. The living room was like an enormous empty cavern, with
only a small table in front of a large couch. There were a few chairs
scattered around the couch, but it all seemed quite naked. This little
furniture collection formed an intimate audience style arranged before a
large projection screen tv that played a normal porno tape, just your
regular suck & fuck film.

The white carpet was covered with a layer of blankets. Small,
"personal" sized cans of Crisco scattered at strategic points of
convenience, making certain that a fist was within reach of a good lube
job.

The group was composed of paired strangers brought together by the hair
stylist and made a rather motley and eclectic gathering. Two guys in
leather, another set blondes, a pair of blacks, two collegiate types and
several skin heads, all in all, a rather nasty looking group.

I noticed the blonde was laying back, pants open, slowly jacking while he
watched the film, seemingly oblivious to the group milling about with
drinks. It seemed quite natural for a guy to jack off in the room while
he enjoyed the fuck film. His pace quickened, and his balls tightened
up. He got to the cusp of shooting his load and his strokes intensified,
I dropped to my knees, took his cock in my mouth and swallowed the boy's
load. We exchanged gratitude and quick smiles; he didn't make a mess
and I like nothing better than to have a guy jack off in my mouth.

A light flickered, the video screen volume came up and a narrator asked
us to take seats. A film began, obviously done inside a very large
barn. Two guys stepped into frame, both quite goodlooking and probably
early 20's. The brunette with the long hair, had his pants already
opened -- he looked like he knew what he was expecting. His buddy
stepped off frame and we heard a voice say, "Ok Tom, now strip naked
boy." And with that he stripped off his blue jeans, shirt and shorts.
He displayed a beautiful body about 20, stood smiling and proud with half
a hardon.

In the background we could hear a horse whiney. Behind Tom was a wooden
"horse" type of table similar to what a carpenter uses but reconfigured
for a better use. It allowed space for a guy to lay on with his cock and
balls hanging through a hole in the top, and restraints at each of the
four legs. There were very large rubber cups that obviously would hold a
horse hoof each.

Tom's partner returned and helped Tom onto the wooden horse, tucking his
cock and balls into the hole, ass up, ankles and wrists bonded to each
appropriate leg. The voice behind the camera gave instructions on
occasion to keep things moving. As the last step, Peter (the partner)
took a rag and rubbed it on Tom's naked ass and hips and cast it to the
side. Finally Tom was strapped securely to the wooden horse, and turned
his head to watch what was approaching.

Peter (the handler) then brought an incredibly beautiful black stallion.
His body gleamed with sweat, his nostrils snorted with passion. The
stallion pranced a bit. The stallion had been well primed with the same
rag that had been rubbed on a mare in heat. The stallion's cock hung
long under his flanks.

Peter brought the horse to Tom -- coaxed the horse into the well-used
rubber cups. The stallion had been here before. Tom pushed his ass back
-- wanting the horse cock desperately. His ass flared opened, red and
wet -- this boy had been primed. He needed preparation to take this
cock.

The huge horse cock rose to a long hard 20 inches. Peter grasped the
base of the cock to control the horse and guided the horse cock to Tom's
open flared-red butt hole. The stallion lunged at the upturned ass,
trying to impale the boy with his huge cock. Peter finally got the head
of the dick at the boy's hole and the huge cock slide about 12 inches
into the boy -- Tom convulsed and was impaled with the huge horse cock.
If it hadn't been for Peter holding the horse cock by the base, the
stallion would have shoved the entire 20 inches of cock up his ass.

The blonde that I had seen earlier, had been watching the black guy open
his pants, take out a huge 9-1/2 cock and lay back slowly stroking while he
watch the boy get horse fucked. The blonde crawled over on his hands and
knees, looked up for approval, got a nod and took the huge cock down his
throat. After a few moments, the guy said, "That's enough sucking, now
lick my boots the same way boy."

And with that the blonde crawled onto the floor, and began licking his
shoes with the same passion he licked the man's black cock. His
beautiful bubble butt turned up in the air. I want to see that butt
naked later I thought.

Turning back to the film, I watched the horse ram fucking the willing
ass, the horse snorted violently, cum shot out of his ass. As the horse
became to calm down, the camera moved in to focus on the horse cock still
inside the boy -- we could see part of a face with dark hair like Peter
-- sucking the horse cum out of Tom's ass. The video went dark.

A side door opened and a man stepped into the room. He stepped onto a
small plastic stage and started to address the group. My attention was
drawn to the side as a whiff of fresh manshit waffed under my nose. The
two collegiate boys were in a far corner. The crew cut guy totally naked
squatted over his partner that laid under him completely clothed. I
could clearly see a long thin rope of brown turd hanging from his asshole
into the boy's mouth. The boy laid on his back quite calm with his
hands folded on his flat tummy. The crew cut said in a gruff low voice,
"Don't move an inch, just eat my shit boy." The turd slowly
disappeared down his mouth as he chewed obediently. He never moved,
didn't open his pants or make a sound -- just obeyed. He ate his
Master's shit.

I returned my attention to the man on the small lite stage. He said we
could take a short break and return to the amusement for the main
attraction.

About 15 minutes later he called us back from our refreshment and
miscellaneous blow jobs. The real personalities had come out. Several
more guys were sporting large slave collars, most had brown stains on
their tongues or fresh piss. During the 15 minute break I watched a guy
get punch fisted -- made for interesting cocktail time.

Our guest was dressed in stained levies, and smelled of strong horse
shit. His voice sounded similar to the voice behind the camera. He said
he wanted us to enjoy ourselves and could take part if we wished.

And with that the door opened again. A young boy about 14 or 15, dressed
in a black silk Japanese-type komona was brought from the side door,
proper small slave collar around his white neck, with a dangling dog
chain to the side, held by his Master. His pure white innocent face
shined above the black silk.

This is Tim, the announcer said. The boy is a willing participant in the
games of the evening. He gestured towards Tim, and the Master stepped
behind him and in one pull, ripped off the silk komona, exposing a naked,
lean, well developed young virgin to be ravished at will. His only
clothing was his dog collar.

He was slowly walked around so that we could all get a close touch and
feel. Not to get too raudy we were warned. You'll have him later.

They returned to the small lite stage and the boy obediently dropped
naked to his hands and knees. The boy's dog chain hung from his neck
and clicked on the floor when he turned his head around to watch the dog,
his Master, enter the room proudly. The lights from under the stage
light his under belly perfectly.

A large german Sheppard was brought in from the side door without a
leash. The Master brought the dog to the boy's upturned ass -- he
sniffed. MMM -- this doggie had been there before! A long pink cock
poked out of the dog sheath, the dog tongued the boy's upturned ass.

Immediately the dog mounted the boy, and started stabbing at the
beautiful white boy ass, trying to find his pink hole. The dog handler
helped guide the now extended hard dog-cock into the boy's body. The
boy pushed back when the dog cock touched his open willing hole. The
animal thrust into his bitch in one shove, taking took over his bitch,
fucking wildly like the animal he is.

My attention was drawn to the black guy on the couch. He was naked when
I turned looked and heard him order the blonde to strip. The boy stood
up as ordered and waited for his instructions. He took his arm, walked
around the couch and then shoved him back into the sofa, lifted his legs
exposing another pink asshole spread wide, waiting to be taken. The
black guy held his 9-1/2 hard cock in hand, with a little lube and impaled
the boy in one stroke down to his pubes. The boy gasped and smile,
spreading his legs more while the black guy fucked him with the same
passion the dog fucked the boy on stage. An unforgettable image of
watching that huge black cock slide into that white round ass.

I looked back to the stage and could see from the well lit position the
dog knot had begun to grow -- and the dog fucked with wild animal
abandon, harder and harder. Finally we heard the boy groan -- and saw
the knot disappear into his beautiful tight ass. The Master was locked
to his bitch.

Again the door opened and a second man brought out a black lab --
prancing proudly. The lab was brought to the front of the boy. Without
hesitation, the dog jump on his shoulders, poking his already hard cock
towards the boy's open mouth. I could easily see the angelic innocent
pure white face eagerly open his mouth and take the dog cock and suck
greedily. He loved blowing the dog cock.

We watched in passion and rapture as the boy sucked off the black lab
while his tender ass was getting well fucked with a huge Sheppard cock.
Finally the Sheppard stopped pumping, wanting to be free, but was locked
to the boy's ass. The dog turned and tried to drag the helpless boy
back -- he could only move with his Master. Cum dripped out of his the
corner of mouth and asshole.

The collegiate boy stood next to me still fully dressed, he wore a touch
of brown stain around his lips like a badge of honor. He literally
drooled watching the boy get fucked. I finally asked, "Hot isn't
it?" To which he responded, "I sure would like to clean that up." I
looked at his master with a questioned face and he nodded to the boy. At
that moment the boy dashed across the room, slide under the boy-dog fuck
combo and drank the dog cum and boy juices dripping out of his open ass
with great relish.

A huge bear of a man approached me, looked me in the eyes - I thought he
was going to tear me apart or rape me. Instead, he dropped to his knees,
slowly and very gently opened my pants, took out my hard cock and began
to blow me. There was a hot guy on each side occupying my hands and
fingers while I alternately stroked cock and finger butt hole.

The rest of the evening turned into a blur of a long shadowed orgy. Even
for breakfast I fucked a guy on the table.

Big Prize to Cisco (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4555163)

Watch the CEO as he wears a little US flag on his lapel while greedily counting th bucks he's made by supporting brutal repression in China. Better use for the research money- hire a crew of goons and a helicopter, then see if Cisco CEO can fly if he flaps his arms fast enough.

Re:Big Prize to Cisco (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4555613)

Point being that Cisco built the National Firewall of China?

finally (2, Flamebait)

tps12 (105590) | more than 11 years ago | (#4555170)

It's about time that the government steps in to protect us from the corporations and right-wing Christians who'd like to own our souls and shield us from all the "evil" pornography (fourth ring of hell reserved for Slashdotters?). I am a hard-core capitalist, but even I can recognize a market failure when I see one. Just as overfishing once lead to mass unemployment and starvation in the Northeast US, the greed of a few supercorporations (the likes of which were never conceived of by the founders of our nation) and the fiery rhetoric of a few rabid Christians have turned us into slaves of exploitative technology. And people are too stupid to provide a good market for anti-censorware products, so we're screwed. This research should set things right again.

True, for if there is no sin to resist (5, Funny)

Adam Rightmann (609216) | more than 11 years ago | (#4555220)

what does that say about one's state of grace? As a Catholic, I recognize the sinfulness of pornography (in most cases), yet, when I refuse to succumb to the lure of such lurid depictions, I triump over sin. I would not have that opportunity if my interent connection was filtered, and I would eventually have a weakened moral system.

The Vatican has one of the world's great collections of erotica (for research purposes), and you would be very hard pressed to find a more moral, less sinful group of men in the world.

Re:True, for if there is no sin to resist (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4555314)

I jerk off to computer porn almost everyday. Porn is beautiful, denoucing it is a sin

Re:True, for if there is no sin to resist (3, Insightful)

Theodrake (90052) | more than 11 years ago | (#4555348)

Somebody please mod this up as funny. I almost split a gut over this one. More moral, oh god, oh god, there goes my gut. Bugger all, how can a group of men that deny their natural desires for sexual release be less sinful and more moral then me. The more you attempt to repress a normal desire the more it controls you.

Re:True, for if there is no sin to resist (1, Troll)

Apreche (239272) | more than 11 years ago | (#4555359)

Oh, the vatican has a great collection of erotica eh? That must be why only the priests in America are raping little boys. The ones in Italy get to jerk off to porn instead!

Re:True, for if there is no sin to resist (1)

carb (611951) | more than 11 years ago | (#4555465)

what does that say about one's state of grace? As a Catholic, I recognize the sinfulness of pornography (in most cases), yet, when I refuse to succumb to the lure of such lurid depictions, I triump over sin.

I hear you brother. I am tempted daily by women, booze and drugs, but I too have triumped over sin, a reward much greater than the inebriation such things provide. I will not succumb to the devil - I shall triump over his sinful distractions.

... I hope that wasn't in bad taste.

Re:True, for if there is no sin to resist (0, Flamebait)

pyite (140350) | more than 11 years ago | (#4555775)

Moral, HAH. I think there's only one quote appropriate in this instance: "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition. " Please, spare us from your Catholic goody-goodyness. Christendom has committed more atrocities as a whole than any other group of people.

Baloney (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4555990)

"Christendom has committed more atrocities as a whole than any other group of people."

You have no source, and you spout this like its true.

You're no better than the goatse people here. No, you're worse, because they're joking. You think you're insightful.

Guys, he was being funny (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4555964)

Note to moderators. When someone refers to Catholic priests in a context:

"you would be very hard pressed to find a more moral, less sinful group of men in the world."

This is called "being sarcastic". Remember, this is the group of guys who want to molest children, and then claim we shouldn't judge the priests unfairly.

Therefore, this comment *has* to be moderated as "funny" because the Vatican seems to be on the side of child molestors.

There's no other way to interpret this, right?

Let's build a house of porn next to where you live (0, Offtopic)

Brian_Ellenberger (308720) | more than 11 years ago | (#4555367)

Putting the Internet rhetoric aside for a second, let me ask you a question. How would you like a hard-core pornography store opened up next to where you live? Or better yet, what percentage of Americans would like hard-core pornography stores opened up where they live? Probably not very many people considering current zoning laws. You don't have to be an "evil right-wing Christian" to dislike the idea either. The regulation of porn was judged constitutional years ago.

So it is not a stretch of the imagination to think that people would not want a hard-core pornography store in their public library. I want to be able to use the library and have my kids use the library. I don't want a bunch of seedy people who could give a crap viewing porn on the library computers and jacking-off under their coats. Especially since I am paying for those computers!

Which is a second point to make in this case. The taxpayers pay for those computers. Therefore the taxpayers through their elected officials should have some say in how those computers are used. I'm sick of these librarians acting as if they solely own the library. If you want porn, buy your own computer and view porn there.

Of course censorware is not perfect. Far from it. But it will improve in research, and until then you can just a librarian assistant walk around every now and then and/or have a librarian available to take complaints.

Brian Ellenberger

Re:Let's build a house of porn next to where you l (3, Insightful)

heikkile (111814) | more than 11 years ago | (#4555575)

Fine by me! And seemingly by most of my countrymen. Pornographic stuff has been free here in Denmark for ages (I think since late 1960's), and no harmful effects of it has been shown.

The zoning laws etc. make no special distinction between a porn empire, and a second-hand bookstore, and indeed both kinds exist freely in the cities. Many shops carry pornographic magazines, just like they carry magazines about movie/music stars fine arts, and photography, without anyone trying classify the stuff into "obscene" and "decent". Those who don't want to purchase them are free not to. Those few who take offense on happening to see a bit of bare skin are tolerated with an amused smile, and mostly ignored, just like those who object to people eating meat or wearing furs.

Re:finally (5, Insightful)

Christianfreak (100697) | more than 11 years ago | (#4555417)

This is a troll but I'll bite.

I am a Christian. I believe that porn is morally wrong (For reasons other than "God said so" but that's a discussion for another day.). I also believe it is wrong to censor porn because some people don't have problems with it. I would love porn to go away but that would require a change in people that view it and I understand that you can't legislate morality people have to be moral on their own.

Just like we can't bring morality by legislating a technology that can censor, we really shouldn't be legislating against that technology either. We have free speech in the U.S. and nothing should be allowed to come between us and that freedom. But people have the freedom to choose to censor things. I don't want to see porn so I don't go to porn sites. I don't need a technology to censor that because I can choose on my own and I've used the Internet long enough to make sure I don't accidentally do that. What about a child? If we ban censoring technology can parents still get software that that helps keep them from coming across porn? We do need better parents but buying such software should be a parent's choice and it shouldn't be legislated one way or the other.

That said I'm now going to say its not "right-wing Christians" that are producing or mandating censorware. The people who are doing that corporations which after they develop a technology they come on TV screaming "protect the children" which insites some people, including some Christians to demand it. If censorware is legislated then certain companies make lots of money. So it all comes down to money.

And finally I'm not rabid I've had all my shots.

hard-core capitalist (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4555476)

So as people don't assiciate hard-core capitalists with the views of the parent post.

No your not, where's the market failure, it looks like the RIAA and Microsoft are paying threre way to keep the market. Sounds capitalist to me.
You wan't controls on what the RIAA can do to protect[not protect] there market, which is socilist.

Maybe you liberal, but you not hard-core capitalist, I'm hard-core capitalist.

Re:finally (1)

patter (128866) | more than 11 years ago | (#4555916)

Heh, well while this was for some reason modded as insightful (doubtless by moderators who misunderstood the article as well), there is no money earmarked for anti-censorship in the United States.

The article is about CHINA's censoring of the Internet, and technology that circumvents that...

Ummm.. anyway, I agree with your ideas, unfortunately, they are not coming to bear in the nation which extols its 'right to freedom speech'. Sad really. I think someone has to get some money behind constitutional matter quickly before these overfunded religious zealots destroy what freedoms we have left in this part of the World..

From a "Right-Wing Fundamentalist Zealot" (2, Interesting)

dochood (614876) | more than 11 years ago | (#4555966)

... who also happens to be somewhat of a Libertarian!

I'm not interested in enlisting the aid of the U.S. or any other Government in "protecting your soul" from pornography. I'm interested in protecting my soul and the souls of my children from it, as is my responsibility as a parent. I would also like to see the children of America's church youth groups protected from it.

If you're an adult, and you want to look at the stuff on your time, with your resources and your money, FINE! I might have a debate with you as to why it's bad for your soul to look at it, and why it's bad for society in general, but I won't have the Government Morality Police with me when I do it.

Having said that, I don't think it's anyone's right to demand tax-payer subsidies so he can exercise his perversion in full view of children at the tax-funded public libraries! If a person purchased "Hustler" and gave a copy to my minor child, he'd end up in prison in 10 seconds flat! Why is it, then, when someone put the same material on the web, it all of a sudden becomes free speech that should be protected for everyone, including children? I'm not saying you are making that argument, but when libraries fight filtering software, what else are they saying but that they are not bound by the law to keep pornography from children, and that all citizens have a right to view it, no matter who is watching, at tax payer expense?

I use "Dan's Guardian" http://www.dansguardian.org on a locked-down proxy server to help shield my kids from pornography. Therefore, I am exercising my right and responsibility as a parent.

dochood

US Politics (4, Interesting)

PhysicsScholar (617526) | more than 11 years ago | (#4555171)

I've been following censorware/anti-censorware issues for awhile now, both here in the UK and over in the United States.

The inherent problem lies in the fact that your Senate and Congress members strongly disagree on this whole topic, thusly ensuring several competing acts, some for censorware, and the others totally against such information-reducing software methods.

Unfortunately, it seems many of the more prominent members are in favor of censorware. For example, Senator John McCain from Arizona has proposed a bill that will force schools to implement filtering in order to receive a federal communications subsidy. This bill has raised awareness of the censorware situation, because many free speech advocates oppose it.

HOW IS THIS A TROLL?? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4555234)

No text.

Re:HOW IS THIS A TROLL?? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4555396)

Grandparent poster lives in parents' basement... check!
Posts utter hogwash in attempt to get moderated up by mods who are 'letting opposing voices be heard'... check!
Grandparent has posted multiple times as an AC whining about downward moderation... Check!

Ladies and gentlemen, according to the three strike rule, the grandparent poster is a troll!

Re:US Politics (3, Insightful)

WeaponOfChoice (615003) | more than 11 years ago | (#4555250)

The inherent problem lies in the fact that your Senate and Congress members strongly disagree on this whole topic, thusly ensuring several competing acts, some for censorware, and the others totally against such information-reducing software methods.

I completely agree, the dichotomy of democracy is that is represents one of the least stable structures from the point of view of the people actually seen to be running it - presidents, prime ministers - people who can be voted out with relative ease. I'd imagine they look with more than a little jealousy at countries led by people who maintain a more rigid grip on the reigns of power using censorship to great effect.

The key to it all is the difference between good censorship and bad censorship - the good used to secure the powerbase of the government and keep the people ignorant, the bad used by other governments to do the same thing to their people.

A recent case this brings to mind is in the UK where the media was gagged from reporting on the details of a case (and in fact gagged from reporting on the gag). The case concerned evidence that the UK government had previously paid Al'queda (back in the 80's) to assassinate Gaddafi - something the government believed the people should not be allowed to know...
Now, is that because it's better for me not to know that the government used terrorists, or is it the government worried that the fact may reduce their credibility in the current 'war on terror'...

Troll? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4555262)

Already beeing flagged as a troll.

*sigh*

Someone from outside the US makes a reasonable, thoughful comment on US politics they get 'troll'

Someone inside the US makes a reasonable, thoughtful comment on politics outside the US they get 'insightful'

Come on guys, step back, what exactly offended you here?

Re:Troll? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4555335)

In this case, we're labelling accurately the person behind the post, not the contents of the post itself.

Irony (1)

CharlieO (572028) | more than 11 years ago | (#4555993)

So you are saying that it doesn't matter what is being said, if an unelected member of the community believes that they have no right to contribute to the discussion then they can flag thier speech such that most members of the community will not be able to read what they say?

Do I need to point out that in a discussion about the evils of censoring peoples access to information how ironic your standpoint is?

And this time I choose not to post anon, to hell with it I've bugger all karma to lose.

Re:US Politics (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4555322)

Bwaha.. Browsing at -1, and what do I see but one of my very own foes, who has (in an attempt to boost his rating) made me (and all others who have him marked as an enemy) a friend.

Too bad that most of us don't see any reason to give our fans a bonus, eh?

(I feel like a star! Even the trolls love me!)

No selling censorware...does it matter??? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4555175)

Why should it matter if we sell them censorware or not? The people of China are hardly what one would think of as stupid... if we stopped selling them software they'd write it themselves. Developing ways to get around already established censoring techniques is more important than just not giving them the tools with which to censor

Re:No selling censorware...does it matter??? (3, Insightful)

jamie (78724) | more than 11 years ago | (#4555222)

"Why should it matter if we sell them censorware or not? The people of China are hardly what one would think of as stupid... if we stopped selling them software they'd write it themselves."

Good point! And very true. But wouldn't it seem odd for some people in this country to make a living censoring Beijing and Riyadh in the name of profit, while others make a living getting around it in the name of democracy?

How would that look on the international scene?

If we did that, next thing you know we'd be doing all kinds of wacky things, like... I don't know... suing tobacco companies and giving the money to tobacco farmers [miami.com]...

Re:No selling censorware...does it matter??? (3, Interesting)

danheskett (178529) | more than 11 years ago | (#4555693)

Good point! And very true. But wouldn't it seem odd for some people in this country to make a living censoring Beijing and Riyadh in the name of profit, while others make a living getting around it in the name of democracy?

Odd yes, but thats the beauty of this country. The lack of cohesion is proof positive that the most major constraint on the direction of your life is your own self.

Re:No selling censorware...does it matter??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4555632)

Yeah, and conveniently a few people can get rich doing it. Why hold yourself to any sort of standard? Ideals are for lusers.

Congress People need a dose of medicine (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4555178)

http://quiz.ravenblack.net/blood.pl?3331888710

What is the opposite of progress ? Congress!

Um... (3, Insightful)

acehole (174372) | more than 11 years ago | (#4555187)

I'm just wondering what happens to the companies that invest in the child protection software?

Could the whole anti-censorware thing catch up the innocents? What is to stop a pr0n company from saying that it's a form of censorship to block the site (although you'd have to be a really sleazy person to argue it).

Re:Um... (3, Interesting)

ArthurDent (11309) | more than 11 years ago | (#4555323)

although you'd have to be a really sleazy person to argue it

Unfortunately, because it would only take one person, the chances of this happening is almost certain. In fact, this has been happening in pr0n for years, just not in this context.

There needs to be a way to fully protect children from the evils of the 'Net without hindering consenting adults as it were. Myself, I'm a proponent of having a pr0n top level domain that parents could just block or something like that. That makes it easy for parents, and easy for the pr0n industry and their clients. The only catch to all this is that the government would need to place restrictions on where and how the sites could be blocked.

A tough line to draw, as it always has been and will continue to be in this arena.

Ben

Re:Um... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4555360)

yes, I'm worried about this too.

We have to keep the children from finding out about sex, or they will just make more children.

Soon the entire world will be overrun with the annoying little buggers.

In general, it's pretty damn important that we quickly find a robust technology to allow our government to keep people from looking at stuff God doesn't want them to look at while at the same time preventing the governments of Satan from keeping other people from looking at the things Satan doesn't want them to look at. The easiest thing would be if we could develop Artificial Intelligence that was capable of distinguishing Godly data from data that comes from Satan.

Re:Um... (2)

glwtta (532858) | more than 11 years ago | (#4555551)

Uhhh, blocking sites (even porn sites) is a form a censorship (my sleazieness notwithstanding). Porn is heavily censored in this country, internet or no internet, minors or no minors.

The problem with embargoes (4, Interesting)

Junior J. Junior III (192702) | more than 11 years ago | (#4555193)

If you refuse to deal with someone, you can retain a semblance of ethical purity, it is true. But if they don't *need* your business in order to survive, the embargo doesn't accomplish anything in real terms to effect positive change. Companies and nations that have no ethical qualms about dealing with countries that censor their internet will continue to do business with them, and then you run the risk of being the isolationist odd-man out.

Besides, with the amount of censorship that is allowed to happen in this country, it'd be fairly hypocritical if we refused to deal with other nations that practiced censorship.

We're #17!!

Just a quick question? (1, Flamebait)

SquierStrat (42516) | more than 11 years ago | (#4555211)

Where did the founding fathers mention that it is the government's job to spend money to subsidize research? Really, this all sounds wasteful of taxpayer dollars that could be better spent uh I don't know, how about just not spending it? Or maybe paying back some of the massive debt?

Re:Just a quick question? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4555272)

Where did they mention that it was the government's job to build Interstate highways? What about air traffic control? I too am tired of all this crap our government wastes money on these days. I wish they would go back to taxing tea.

Moron.

Re:Just a quick question? (2)

SquierStrat (42516) | more than 11 years ago | (#4555660)

Interstate highways hmm well they were designed for defense originally, so they would fall under that. Both interstates and ATC well, can you say interstate commerce? There is promote the general welfare, which ATC defnitely falls under. Imagine if all of the states had to cooperate for air regulations! It wouldn't happen. That's why you have a federal government, to govern things the affect every state basically at the same time.

However, subsidizing research? Private companies and private individuals can do research on something if they want (or at least they should be able to, half of anything anyone would want to research is illegal to research) why do they need the government to use its police power to take money from individuals and other companies and give to them to do it?

The DMCA does not criminilize research (2, Interesting)

91degrees (207121) | more than 11 years ago | (#4555212)

The Library of Congress explicitely stated that "Compilations consisting of lists of Web sites blocked by filtering software applications" was an exception to the DMCA.

Presumably this extends to the restriction on tools as well, and the researcher in question just wants the courts to explicitely clarify this.

Senate Bill to Subsidize Anti-Censorware Research (4, Insightful)

Dunark (621237) | more than 11 years ago | (#4555213)

Remember Petswarehouse? How about a bill to protect U.S. Citizens from companies that sue people for saying things they don't like?

You can see it now... (5, Funny)

MosesJones (55544) | more than 11 years ago | (#4555219)


Judge: So who ordered you to perform this research ?

PhD: Err... the US Goverment

Judge: Are you aware that this breaks the DMCA ?

PhD: Not really, I mean the goverment asked me to do this, they wouldn't ask me to break the law would they ?

Judge: US Goverment did you ask this PhD student to break the law ?

US Goverment: I've never heard anything so ridiculous when would we ever do that ?

Judge: Nixon ?

USG: Apart from then

Judge: Iran-Contra ?

USG: Apart from then .... continue for two hours

USG: Anyway the Goverment never got convicted then, so that means we have a precedent...

Judge: Good point, Mr PhD Student I sentence you to 10 years in prison for violating the DMCA and 5 years for mis-use of federal funds.

PhD: ?!

USG: Nice touch.

Do I Need To Say It? (5, Insightful)

limekiller4 (451497) | more than 11 years ago | (#4555224)

A absolutely love the fact that we, as a country can, with a straight face, seek to prevent our own citizens from seeing certain things and at the same time subsidize methods to defeat such techniques in other countries ...all while maintaining a straight face.

But then, I guess if we can subsidize murder in other countries when it suits us and then have the chutzpah to call the same done to us as "terrorism," this shouldn't actually come as a shock, should it?

Re:Do I Need To Say It? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4555295)

Our terrorists are "freedom fighters" dumb-dumb. If you can't see the difference, then you are obviously unsuited for an American political career.

Re:Do I Need To Say It? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4555319)

Yeah, I am sure you would be amazed knowing that we allow our soldiers to kill enemy soldiers during the war without any punishment yet try to take care of out troops the best way we can.
How amazingly unfair , don't you think ?

Re:Do I Need To Say It? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4555342)

" if we can subsidize murder in other countries when it suits us "

That's called politics dummy.
If you don't take care of your interests nobody else will.
Thank God we have people at the top who seem to realize this very basic principle, something a lot of naive idiots like you seem to have problem understanding.

Re:Do I Need To Say It? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4555792)

"if we can subsidize murder in other countries when it suits us "
That's called politics dummy.

Your appreciation of politics is either misinformed, excessively cynical, or downright scary.

Politics is taking care of your interests, of course. Everyone has a right to do that. Things even go over the top once in a while and people die, sure.

Murder as a national policy rebounds on the ones who originate it. First aggression rebounds. It instantly justifies any action whatsoever which is taken against the aggressor, purely in the name of self-defence.

The Nazis were arguably taking care of Germany's interests in annexing the Sudetenland, in invading Poland, in creating fortress Europe and in trying to conquer Russia. Every step was, after all, just politics and was in the long term interest of the German people.

If you can't spot the problem there, then there may be no hope for you.

We have done this very thing for 200 years... (3, Insightful)

Brian_Ellenberger (308720) | more than 11 years ago | (#4555469)

What's the big deal? Since this country has been founded we have both regulated porn and encouraged free speech, especially political free speech. You are seeking to make things like political speech=porn, which the Supreme Court already rejected years ago.

Also we are not "preventing our own citizens" from viewing porn (as if we are banning it altogether) but saying that you cannot view porn in a taxpayer funded library. You want to get off on porn, do it in your own house. But you have no right to demand it on everyone's dollar.

If your truely worried about speech, why not worry about something truly substantial like the Unconstitutional Campaign Finance Reform that harms political speech. [aclu.org]

Brian Ellenberger

First Amendment and Hypocricy (4, Insightful)

limekiller4 (451497) | more than 11 years ago | (#4555858)

Brian_Ellenberger writes:
"What's the big deal? Since this country has been founded we have both regulated porn and encouraged free speech, especially political free speech. You are seeking to make things like political speech=porn, which the Supreme Court already rejected years ago."

I'm ...trying to ...equate political speech with porn? What??

"Also we are not "preventing our own citizens" from viewing porn (as if we are banning it altogether) but saying that you cannot view porn in a taxpayer funded library. You want to get off on porn, do it in your own house. But you have no right to demand it on everyone's dollar."

The hell I don't.

What qualifies as porn? How about Jock Sturges? Does his work [body-n-mind.com] qualify? Does this page [fetbot.com] make the cut? How about a website on breast reconstructive surgery [breast-imp...ations.com] for post-mastectomy patients?

And I wouldn't be doing my argument justice if I didn't bring up the thorny but oh-so-necessary "who decides?" question. I guess the most pragmatic answer is 'the politicians' but is obscenity constant -- is a thing offensive by its very nature -- or does it shift with the political tide? Do we want what we can and cannot see be dictated by those who want to get re-elected? Are you prepared to have Fallwell make this decision for you? You can bet your ass that the aformentioned mastesctomy website qualifies in his book.

Finally, why is it that only your idea of offensive is truly offensive? To the Chinese, our entire view on individual freedom easily qualifies as offensive and probably more harmful to society than even the most strident Republican we have in office views Mr Goatsex.

The issue here is not mere pornography. The issue is the tacit assumption and enforcement of the notion that people should be entitled to say what they want BUT other people should not necessarily be able to hear it. The only way for you to get around this is by taking the position that photography does not qualify as speech. Good luck.

"If your truely [sic] worried about speech, why not worry about something truly substantial like the Unconstitutional Campaign Finance Reform that harms political speech. "

Ah, the you-must-not-really-be-genuine-in-your-concern-els e-you'd-be-doing-<insert-thing-here>-instead argument.

they could give about $50 millions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4555225)

to the freenet project or even to the Peek-a-booty
(http://peek-a-booty.org/) project since they already have produced code to prevent censorware.

Artaxerxes

Just an idea (5, Insightful)

ninjadoug (609521) | more than 11 years ago | (#4555236)

How about an interview with a normal everyday user in China (i.e. the chinese version of the average /. reader) asking what it is like to be a computer user/nerd over there

Re:Just an idea (1)

Annoyed Coward (620173) | more than 11 years ago | (#4555528)

Not bad. I believe all this becomes culture specific and more to do with how somebody is brought up. (Burping is an act of appreciation in some part of middle east, where as it is bad manners in some parts of the world. And trust me, having seen best of both the worlds, I can give 100 more examples) We reject 'one size fits all'. It can be easily proven that every culture has different views.

Re:Just an idea (0)

yivi (236776) | more than 11 years ago | (#4555937)

You have an extremely inflated opinion about /. readership.

An interview with something like "the average /.er reader" is probably among the silliest and most uninteresting things possible. I wouldn't matter if she/he is chinese or otherwise.

Hmmm... (1)

Tsali (594389) | more than 11 years ago | (#4555275)

Being an primary exporter of anti-censorship software and utilities, I find this latest decision a concrete step in the right direction since we have been shut out of the domestic market by legislation. Fortunately, our pro-censorship software and utilities have been in great demand since the Patriot Act has gone into effect.

I need to pay my lobbiest more money.

(No, I'm not serious.)

A geek can dream, can't he? (1)

RoboOp (460207) | more than 11 years ago | (#4555278)

Just as long as countering this [afterdawn.com] is one of the target objectives, I have no problem with this project.

What the hell? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4555282)

What is this intarweb of which you speak?

Forbidding business? (5, Insightful)

Alethes (533985) | more than 11 years ago | (#4555290)

How about forbidding American corporations from trading censorware goods or services to these "repressive governments," wouldn't that be a good start?

That will work just about as well as forbidding the export of cryptography to rogue nations. It's assuming those governments are not capable of finding somebody that will either ignore the ban or just find somebody within their own ranks to write the software for them.

Geez, they could just have students write censoring proxy servers as projects and use the best one to censor the whole nation.

Heres the deal (0)

hfastedge (542013) | more than 11 years ago | (#4555300)

How about forbidding American corporations from trading censorware goods or services to these "repressive governments," wouldn't that be a good start?

That would be censoring them, and messing with the US's economy, so there is less reason to need to make these countries mad AND hurt the US than make both parties happy, and then address the problems in the future, as the US is doing now.

A mote in our eye (4, Insightful)

ianscot (591483) | more than 11 years ago | (#4555310)

(1) ...These constitutional provisions guarantee the rights of Americans to communicate and associate with one another without restriction, including unfettered communication and association via the Internet.

They're talking about Americans and the U.S. Consitution, not Chinese and North Koreans, in the bill's very first point. A sign that the authors know what they're about, here?

(8) Since the 1940s, the United States has deployed anti-jamming technologies to make Voice of America and other United States Government sponsored broadcasting available to people in nations with governments that seek to block news and information.

The precedent: Because we've had this sort of arms race, jamming and anti-jamming technologies, over the Voice of America, we should also in principle try to disable jamming technologies on the Web? But apparently only when we're trying to reach the communists with our messages of freedom and light?

The Voice of America is a broadcast message. Big difference between broadcast and point-to-point media: you can control the VoA's programming, but the reason the internet is "powerful engine for democratization and the free exchange of ideas" -- that's the bill talking again -- is because it isn't a controlled state broadcast, it's a bunch of individuals making choices. That's not some detail about the mechanics of the Web, it's what the Web is. If congress simultaneously puts censorware in schools and passes legislation to defeat it abroad, they just don't get how that cuts both ways.

Lobbies.... (1)

AbcManToday (620103) | more than 11 years ago | (#4555667)

Special Interest is exactly why we have schizophrenic laws like this. I personally can't stand the ideas of strong lobbies. Reducing the strength of them is exactly the kind of campaign finance reform I support...

hmm did CIA and FBI apporval of THis? (2, Interesting)

linuxislandsucks (461335) | more than 11 years ago | (#4555327)

It seems on one hand they want to stop countries from censoring but when you look at it.. doesn;t our own fbi and cia do internet censorshp?

I seem to recall several websites shut down because the fbi did not like thme..I am talk about those sites shut before any court judgemnt not after..

One part I take issue with (5, Insightful)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 11 years ago | (#4555332)

(e) LIMITATION ON AUTHORITY- Nothing in this Act shall be interpreted to authorize any action by the United States to interfere with foreign national censorship for the purpose of protecting minors from harm, preserving public morality, or assisting with legitimate law enforcement aims.

"Preserving public morality." The United States Congress's definition of morality. Because if they mean the foreign countries' definitions of morality, that would counter the entire bill. "Legitimate law enforcement." The United States definition of legitimate law enforcement, which these days is being contested by the public. To China, restricting internet access is a legitimate act of law enforcement. As to morals, I don't know what the Chinese government is thinking, but I would think part of their objection to free internet access is their thought that democracy is immoral. Of course the Chinese government is also afraid of what democratic ideas would do to their careers. But I'm afraid this will be interpreted as yet another abuse by the US of its power in the world.

i fucking had sex with a cheesewedge (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4555343)

Later on, I had a 3 some with a bowl of caesar salad and a napkin ring. Booya!

Nigger Jokes (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4555371)


I was going to do a post/troll of some good nigger jokes I found on google.

But the filters are too strong! HELP!

American Corporations (4, Interesting)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 11 years ago | (#4555389)

Forbid American Corporations?

What a stupid idea. This is just the sort of failed concept that was tried with all other sorts of technologies, be it NC Lathes (sold to the Russians by Toshiba), strong crypto (is the US the only country with good mathematicians) or chemical weapons technologies (sold to Iraq by German companies).

With the Chinese [fortune.com] graduating twice as many engineers as the US, what makes you think they can't do this themselves??

What? (3, Insightful)

1s44c (552956) | more than 11 years ago | (#4555397)

How about forbidding American corporations from trading censorware goods or services to these "repressive governments," wouldn't that be a good start?

You want to make the world a more free place by banning stuff? Thats wrong.

We are going to get freedom by making encryption freely avalible. Not by banning filtering systems.

Haiku (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4555408)

Government steal my
precious hard-earned money to
battle censorware

Can someone help me (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4555416)

get cheaper auto insurance?
I'm a shitty driver.

Da Psycho, desperately seeking a rich male to pay my auto insurance
and big time fan of
http://www.askheartbeat.com/cgibin/ultimatebb.cg i

China's just trying to goad us (0, Flamebait)

The Evil Couch (621105) | more than 11 years ago | (#4555421)

into slashdotting their servers so that their entire nation's access to the internet drops and they don't have to worry about people looking up stuff they don't want them to.

In the long run, I'm not sure it matters ... (5, Interesting)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 11 years ago | (#4555434)

... that the US government tries to censor the Net at home, if they're funding research like this. The fruits of this research will spread around the world at the speed of electrons. I can easily see a situation in, say, 2006 where a) the US has developed compact, easily distributed anti-censorware tools and got them into China, b) China has realized the futility of trying to control people's Net usage when such tools are available and given up, and c) US Net usage suffers from increasing restrictions that do nothing to slow down the h4x0rz but makes everyone else's life more difficult than it has to be. And then what? Why, then, the friendly folks in China start e-mailing innocuously named files ("vacation_pics_from_Beijing.zip") to their friends and relatives in the US, and ...

complete the table (1)

aurelian (551052) | more than 11 years ago | (#4555538)

I guess it wasn't confusing enough to (1) subsidize censorware and (2) criminalize researching it -- we also need to (3) subsidize researching it.

So now I guess you need to (4) criminalize censorware?

also confusing (3, Funny)

Fjord (99230) | more than 11 years ago | (#4555602)

How about forbidding American corporations from trading censorware goods or services to these "repressive governments," wouldn't that be a good start?

Sure. Let's fight repression with repression. It'll be like a war for peace.

Re:also confusing (1)

XavierXeon (585110) | more than 11 years ago | (#4555816)

>Sure. Let's fight repression with repression. It'll be like a war for peace.

Sometimes I do have the feeling that this is happening right now. But then I am paranoid anyway.

Crimes against humanity (2)

base3 (539820) | more than 11 years ago | (#4555625)

How about forbidding American corporations from trading censorware goods or services to these "repressive governments," wouldn't that be a good start?

That is a good start. Then immediately thereafter, the senior corporate officers of Cisco and Yahoo, along with the technical staff who were "only following orders" should be delivered to the Hague for trial.

American Made Censoring Products (1)

essiescreet (553257) | more than 11 years ago | (#4555636)

Does America not manufacutre most of the firewalls and access software? Perhaps we could do some regulation here first?

I wish (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4555698)

that they'd censor my prison record!

Osiris the dickless
check out the coolest site on the net!
http://www.askheartbeat.com/cgibin/ultimateb b.cgi

ATTN Michael Sims (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4555756)

You are an assclown.

How's censorware.org these days?

Government Contradictions (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4555801)

Contradictions in government are nothing new. Does anyone else find it amusing that the government spends a lot of money to (1) Discourage people from smoking and (2) Subsidise tabacco farmers?

Bad guys lead 2 against 1 (1)

johnjaydk (584895) | more than 11 years ago | (#4555820)

(1) subsidize censorware Score one for the bad guys. (2) criminalize researching it Score one for the good guys and introducing a double standard. (3) subsidize researching it Score again for the bad guys and introducing a tripple standard.

A government that pass that sort of laws is clearly insane. I'm really scared of the people you put in power in the US.

But then again. Democracy is based on the assumptions that the people a) is informed about what is going on, b) act on that information and vote for somebody that has at least half a clue.

Those who don't vote deserve the politicians they get...

Freenet just asked for money (5, Interesting)

Britz (170620) | more than 11 years ago | (#4555826)

In the release statement of Freenet 0.5 on Slashdot yesterday it was noted that the project needs money. Am I the only one wondering about this coincedence? Since Filesharing is possible over Freenet (among many other anti-censorship uses) it will probabely get nothing.

Hypocritical (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4555939)

> How about forbidding American corporations from
> trading censorware goods or services to these
> "repressive governments," wouldn't that be a good
> start?

Maybe we should start with encryption software...wait a minute...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...