×

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!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

628 comments

Ok, the end of the Internet is here... (5, Funny)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 6 years ago | (#19990893)

Is Freenet ready yet? What do you mean they're still coding it in Java?

Re:Ok, the end of the Internet is here... (4, Insightful)

Longtime_Lurker_Aces (1008565) | more than 6 years ago | (#19990961)

Every time one of these stories comes around (and some politician proposes some ludicrous internet filtering/logging/restriction every few months it seems) I always wonder the same thing:

Are they completely out of touch with technology (it is often a guy in his 60s or 70s proposing the law) and they really see it as a menace and thing these things will solve it, or

Are they completely aware the program won't do one damned thing to solve any problem, but the propose it anyway just so they can put a blurb in their campaign ads about how they protect children.

Re:Ok, the end of the Internet is here... (5, Insightful)

HomelessInLaJolla (1026842) | more than 6 years ago | (#19991069)

It's more closely tied to your second point but even that's just PR spin and campaign hype.

The majority of the push for this sort of thing is money. The allocations of taxpayer money to devote to these pet filtering and monitoring projects will be huge. One particular military subcontractor, Battelle, was already building an _ENORMOUS_ datacenter in Aberdeen, MD, when I left in '07. Why were they building? Most people working at the (existing) tiny site new that it would be mostly devoted to computer science technology but few people knew exactly what. The inside word was that there were going to be enormous contracts coming down the line for processing, indexing, storing, retrieving, and minin gargantuan amounts of data.

Politicians and top-level businessmen work together for years to figure out how to grant themselves a huge chunk of the taxpayer pie. When the news releases start making it to the headlines it's not a matter for debate anymore--it's after the fact justification. The insider trading knowledge that these folks have, by being able to both write the laws and determine the size of the checks and decide to whom the checks are written, is a golden gift from God for the gravy train.

Re:Ok, the end of the Internet is here... (4, Informative)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 6 years ago | (#19991197)

I don't give 'em that much credit for savvy. Both parties in the states are still pimping for the "moral" voters, and support of a sure-to-die, nearly impossible to implement or pay for measure like this is a great way to get you name attached to a moral agenda without actually having to do anything.

Re:Ok, the end of the Internet is here... (4, Insightful)

Danse (1026) | more than 6 years ago | (#19991345)

The inside word was that there were going to be enormous contracts coming down the line for processing, indexing, storing, retrieving, and minin gargantuan amounts of data.
That's kind of the thing I thought about when they started talking about handouts to the telecoms to get them to keep more data on their customers. I don't know the exact numbers involved, but you can bet that taxpayers are going to be shelling out orders of magnitude more cash than it would cost them to keep the data. All for a system that will be put in place ostensibly to track down terrorists, but which will certainly be abused in short order. The temptation is far too great.

Re:Ok, the end of the Internet is here... (4, Informative)

dircha (893383) | more than 6 years ago | (#19991319)

"Are they completely aware the program won't do one damned thing to solve any problem, but the propose it anyway just so they can put a blurb in their campaign ads about how they protect children."

Well you don't have to look far, when voting against a measure like this will guarantee that next election cycle your opponent will run a black and white ad with ominous music saying, "Sen. Jim Bob wants to protect the rights of sexual predators to contact your children on the internet!"

House races especially are dirty like this. This crap happens all the time, I've even seen it in live debates.

And you want to know the really sad part? A lot of voters eat this stuff up. If you're average Soccer Mom Susie, all of a sudden you're not sure you can trust the candidate anymore, and if you already hated the candidate, well now he or she is the devil himself.

Re:Ok, the end of the Internet is here... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19990981)

I'm sick of all this slow java bashing, java supporters: please make your opinions known.
I for one don't care about getting uber leet performance.

Re:Ok, the end of the Internet is here... (1)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 6 years ago | (#19991241)

I like java; it's a good tool...And it is unquestionably a poor tool for this sort of work.

Java is slow, compared to many lower level languages, and even a small performance hit is a big deal when you're talking about this sort of application...This is one of those places where C really shines.

Re:Ok, the end of the Internet is here... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19991111)

With software like Freenet you want as much protection as you can get from things like buffer overflows, a worm can spread like wild fire over Freenet, firewalls and closed ports are irrelevant.

Re:Ok, the end of the Internet is here... (1, Troll)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 6 years ago | (#19991181)

So write safe code instead of goo gooing and gaa gaaing in your little interpreter sandbox hoping the java nanny will protect you.

Re:Ok, the end of the Internet is here... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19991315)

Because 100% secure code is something that every project can achieve if they hire you? Try thinking of it as a second layer of defense instead of a crutch for infidels.

Re:Ok, the end of the Internet is here... (2, Insightful)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 6 years ago | (#19991251)

The slowness of Java is something Java programmers just accept. Unfortunately, as a result, many Java programmers just ignore the problem of performance at all. The best form of optimization is algorithmic complexity reduction.. it has nothing to do with the language you use. You can use the slowest language in the world and still get massive performance if you optimize your algorithm suitably. Thing about Freenet is they don't optimize. They're interested in slow-but-safe browsing.. so the day you see them switch from Java to something faster is the day you know that the focus has changed.

What should be legislated... (5, Insightful)

Tuoqui (1091447) | more than 6 years ago | (#19990901)

is that any argument that invokes 'Think of the Children' automatically loses. We grew up in a dangerous world, so will they. Its up to the parents to monitor what they're doing not the state.

Re:What should be legislated... (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 6 years ago | (#19991015)

is that any argument that invokes 'Think of the Children' automatically loses

Much as I'd like to name such an argument after myself, I think Godwin's Law Part II will probably win the day. Any such argument would simply have to bear too much argument to Godwin's Law current.

Re:What should be legislated... (4, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 6 years ago | (#19991247)

We grew up in a dangerous world, so will they. Its up to the parents to monitor what they're doing not the state.
"We" grew up in a dangerous internet enabled world.
"They" (Senators/Congress/most parents) didn't.

Parents used to know the locals in their neighborhood and that was enough to adequately monitor their children. Now the neighborhood is everyone on the internet.

Some of their fears are legitimate, so don't dismiss them out of hand.
"We" just need to make sure they don't do anything rash.

Re:What should be legislated... (0, Flamebait)

Drakin020 (980931) | more than 6 years ago | (#19991443)

While I agree that parents need to be parents and the state should not be involved, I dissagree with the "We grew up in a dangerous world so will they"

We grew up (Rather I did [I'm 22]) without the internet. Even when it really started to boom it was not near as bad as it is today. The world is alot more dangerous today then when I was a kid. Hell I could walk to school without fear or rape or something like that.

Say what now? (5, Interesting)

Verteiron (224042) | more than 6 years ago | (#19990911)

From TFA:
"While filtering and monitoring technologies help parents to screen out offensive content and to monitor their child's online activities, the use of these technologies is far from universal and may not be fool-proof in keeping kids away from adult material," Sen. Inouye said. "In that context, we must evaluate our current efforts to combat child pornography and consider what further measures may be needed to stop the spread of such illegal material over high-speed broadband connections."

How does he jump from kids seeing pr0n to pr0n of kids? Is this a special type of logic you learn when you get into politics?

Re:Say what now? (1)

Tuoqui (1091447) | more than 6 years ago | (#19991025)

Yes it requires a special type of logic, much like the logic required to comprehend a black hole.

Sen. Stevens said. "The headlines continue to tell us of children who are victimized online. While the issues are difficult, I believe Congress has an important role to play to ensure that the protections available in other parts of our society find their way to the Internet."

I'm just curious which kids are victimized online? Last I thought it was going to meet people in the real world is what got kids victimized typically. Mr. Stevens needs to do more research and go back to persecuting people who play Dungeons and Dragons and Grand Theft Auto.

Ha! (4, Insightful)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 6 years ago | (#19991317)

You said "Research" and "Ted Stevens" in the same sentence...I don't know if you remember, but this is Ted "The internet is a series of tubes" Stevens, the guy knows flat nothing about technology...Hell, he probably thinks this is technically feasible, when anyone with a networking background would just start laughing.

Hopefully fossils like him will just die off or (even better) get thrown out of office and replaced by people who aren't utterly clueless. Our only hope in this situation is for him to kick off, unfortunately, because he'll never stop winning in Alaska as long as he keeps up with the "Bridge to Nowhere" pork projects.

Re:Say what now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19991095)

How does he jump from kids seeing pr0n to pr0n of kids? Is this a special type of logic you learn when you get into politics?


Shhh! You're not supposed to question logic of your leaders. We should welcome warmly this Cute Little Puppies Act. They're not trying to brainwash us. There's no way this would be used against citizens. It's to save our children from raper terrorists. Do you want terrorists to rape your children? Either you're with us, or you're one of them. Do you want to be a raper pedophile cannibal terrorist or do you like cute little furry puppies?

Re:Say what now? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19991161)

I WAS considering raping a puppy...

Re:Say what now? (4, Insightful)

greg_barton (5551) | more than 6 years ago | (#19991127)

Is this a special type of logic you learn when you get into politics?

Yep. It's called juxtaposition. See "Al Qaeda in Iraq"

Re:Say what now? (4, Insightful)

wytcld (179112) | more than 6 years ago | (#19991265)

How does he jump from kids seeing pr0n to pr0n of kids?

He doesn't understand that the computer's not watching him. So then if "kids are being exploited online" ... and as an occasional porn surfer I can testify that the kiddie porn is nowhere some curious kid is at all likely to find it, or adult is at all likely to stumble on by mistake - which is to say I've no idea where it is because obviously those who trade it are well aware they need to hide and keep their groups small. But I digress. In the senator's mind the computer must be directly exploiting kids by luring them to sites where dirty old men instruct the kid to disrobe in front of the computer, while they beam the kids performance out to all their dirty old friends. Or something.

In other words the senator has no friggin idea what being online is actually like. The worst that happens is some 13 year olds find a few videos of adults at orgies. I've overheard the neighbor kids talking about that as they walk down the street. It's a curiousity, but obviously doesn't mean a lot to them. It wouldn't bother me if that stuff was blocked from such kids, but it doesn't bother me that it's not. It was just in the news that porn site revenues have taken a steep drop in the last year. It seems that our culture's been so saturated with the stuff that people just aren't motivated to buy it like they used to. Maybe the senators figure if they can create a more restrictive environment again, it'll revive the porn industry.

After all, that's worked well with recreational drugs.

Re:Say what now? (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 6 years ago | (#19991285)

How does he jump from kids seeing pr0n to pr0n of kids? Is this a special type of logic you learn when you get into politics?

Yes, one of the little known facts of the US government that if you become a senator or represenative and your IQ is above 80 you must repeatedly bash yourself in the head until such time as your IQ lowers to 80 points or lower.

If you get to a 60IQ you get to be speaker of the house.

1984 much? (5, Insightful)

jshriverWVU (810740) | more than 6 years ago | (#19990913)

Orwell must be looking down and shaking his head.

Re:1984 much? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19991157)

Orwell must be looking down and shaking his head.
More like spinning in his grave. If you wrapped copper wire around his corpse and put a magnet on his coffin it would probably yield enough kilowatts to light up your entire neighborhood.

Children and terrorists (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19990917)

Children and terrorists
What a nice blessing for any power hungry totalitarian government

My Announcement: (5, Funny)

JimXugle (921609) | more than 6 years ago | (#19990923)

I would like to make a bipartisan call for the universal firing of every congress critter who supports this idea in order to protect us from stupidity. Congressmen are not invited to comment on this request.

Re:My Announcement: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19991027)

My question is, why is a "Community Based Reporting" site the only one on the web that has any mention of this farce? Either there is a giant conspiracy to conceal any trace of this until this doomsday-hastening legislation gets past, or Slashdot has been trolled.

Re:My Announcement: (1)

Gregb05 (754217) | more than 6 years ago | (#19991453)

Third option: Everywhere else knows it's political grandstanding and ignores it, since it has no chance of passing when it hits the floor.

Oh, shit...
/., YHBT. HAND

I suggest a protest (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19990931)

Tech savvy insiders (such as us) should organize for the million goatse march on washington. It might not be as successful as the million black man march (washington is full of unemployed niggers), but it should be a good way to show our nations "leaders" how we feel about our rights to goatse.

Re:I suggest a protest (1)

r00t (33219) | more than 6 years ago | (#19991409)

You want to leave Washington full of unemployed goatse?

Well. I guess the place really can get worse!

Ironic Tubes (5, Insightful)

Digitus1337 (671442) | more than 6 years ago | (#19990951)

Anyone else notice that this is being headed by Senator Ted Stevens? Why is anyone listening to him about this kind of a thing?

Re:Ironic Tubes (4, Insightful)

MillionthMonkey (240664) | more than 6 years ago | (#19991255)

Why is anyone listening to him about this kind of a thing?

Hopefully nobody. But Ted has to keep talking. He's got some interesting things going on right now [adn.com] and it's best for him to keep the topic on children.

It would be so much nicer if corrupt oil companies were to do a better job of wiring up unethical politicians' houses for Internet when doing them construction favors. We could have been spared all that tube talk. At least put in a kiddie filter for the guy, he's old.

Re:Ironic Tubes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19991267)

It's to keep kids from seeing porn on the net....

And "The Internet is for porn"...

So would it be "A series of boob tubes?"

I wonder why congress hasn't tried to come up with a retarded acronym like the "PATRIOT Act" yet. I propose "Preventing Ludicrous Unsolicited Malicious Reconnaissance", or the "PLUMR Act". That makes it hip and now, even if it doesn't make sense. the Liquid PLUMR act will clear the tubes forever for our children.

Re:Ironic Tubes (2, Informative)

e9th (652576) | more than 6 years ago | (#19991403)

The committee is headed by Inouye, D-HI. Stevens is the vice-chair.

COPA Part Deux? (5, Interesting)

RancidPickle (160946) | more than 6 years ago | (#19990953)

They tried this, and COPA was gutted after the civil liberties folks got back in the loop. I wish Ted 'Series of Tubes' Stevens and Senator 5-0 would stop trying to govern parenting. Heck, isn't Stevens up against the wall for some illicit activities in Alaska? Looks like he can't even protect himself from himself, let alone watching out for other people's kids.

Let parents deal with kids. If the parents can't do it, there are local resources that can help. Legislating to the family unit won't work. There are more important national things begging for attention, like getting a bridge built to a barely inhabited island in AK.

Re:COPA Part Deux? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19991119)

This once again shows that Ted 'teh Tubes' Stevens simply does not understand the technology of the Internet.

For every content blocking filter you put up, I can simply encapsulate my content and go right through. Or will SSL/TLS, IPSec, SSH tunneling, PPTP, PPPoIP, L2TP, and a myriad of other available methods of encapsulation suddenly be outlawed?

Then comes the question of seeding the content filters themselves. How will it be done?

IP filters are a horrible method, since many websites utilize virtual hosting. The elimination of thousands of virtual hosts just to block a single bad host will simply anger too many people. Worse case scenario is that people stop using virtual hosting, causing an even greater need to the few remaining IP addresses available.

Image fingerprinting is also worthless. Simply take a lossless format such as BMP, IFF, GIF, PNG or TIFF and move the bitplanes around. Looks like garbage to a filter, but a simple restore will render a hidden kiddie porn surprise inside.

Heck, bittorrent the stuff. You can't filter what you can't see since the kiddie porn is simply bits of bits coming from all directions when you pull from the torrents.

Re:COPA Part Deux? (0, Troll)

Ph33r th3 g(O)at (592622) | more than 6 years ago | (#19991169)

The court's been packed with more fascists since then. I wouldn't rely on the Supreme Court "Justices" that gutted the Fourth Amendment (your papers, please) to uphold the First.

What a Crock... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19990959)

What are they trying to do? Emulate China?

Do these idiot senators even consider the implications of such a precedent when they propose it? (Well, not like the proposal has a chance to survive, anyway...)

I'm not a father (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19990973)

But I'd rather my kids see a boob and suffice a natural desire, than hrm I dont know drugs, gang banging, drinking, smoking, HAVING sex, skipping school, watching the news and seeking people blown up/burned, and the rest of the horrible things out in the REAL world. Life sucks, putting up an internet filter sounds a lot like another country who's authority we question (china). The net is meant to be an open flow of information.

Re:I'm not a father (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19991021)

Oh.. I was thinking you'd say "But I'd rather my kids see a boob, than hrm I don't know have ther media and mediums be censored by those who will undoubtably take advantage of any such law"

Re:I'm not a father (3, Insightful)

mbeans (1082073) | more than 6 years ago | (#19991225)

I am a father, and I'd rather see my kid go out, get drunk, get laid, and even *gasp* experiment with drugs than sit around in his room alone in the dark, jerking off and downloading pr0n all day.

Don't get me wrong, this internet filter thing is stupid, but your priorities need some adjusting.

Re:I'm not a father (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19991305)

Please post some pix of your daughters.

Yes, we MUST catch up with China!!! (4, Insightful)

intrico (100334) | more than 6 years ago | (#19990975)

Freedom is a THREAT to national security! //end sarcasm

I for one... (1)

bubbaD (182583) | more than 6 years ago | (#19990983)

Welcome our internet monitoring overlords!!!

All /. Comments will be Anonymous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19991073)

How do we know that this article wasn't posted by a US lawmakers, fishing for unruly opposition? Anonymous indeed! I am going to make a new tinfoil hat and watch V for Vendetta again. Maybe cry myself to sleep!

Bubb-- oh wait!
Your truly, Anonymous User

Here's what it's all about. (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 6 years ago | (#19990987)

All sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Someone should really explain the concept of "unworkable" to these clowns. Short of shutting down the entire Internet...no, wait! They couldn't possibly be...???

And they're calling it The Fairness Doctrine???

Re:Here's what it's all about. (1)

obi (118631) | more than 6 years ago | (#19991077)

Hey, if Saudi Arabia and China can implement "Great Firewalls", I'm sure the US can too, don't you agree?

Re:Here's what it's all about. (1)

Urd.Yggdrasil (1127899) | more than 6 years ago | (#19991093)

This is congress were talking about, a bill being completely impossible to enforce has no baring at all on whether or not it passes. Even China is starting to admit that their great firewall isn't working.

Re:Here's what it's all about. (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 6 years ago | (#19991217)

This is just a follow up to the McCain-Feingold Incumbent Protection Act. Once they get the filters in place, for some strange reason, any site which criticizes an incumbent will somehow be blocked by these filters. Of course, the porn will still get through, just like the big money interests still get to the politicians. It is only the little guy that McCain-Feingold got out of the campaigns.

You forgot the most important part ... (1)

PinkyGigglebrain (730753) | more than 6 years ago | (#19991295)

"It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing."
Shakespeare, The Tragedy of Macbeth, Act V, Scene V

Sounds like a good description of the Congress.

Won't somebody think of the parents? (5, Insightful)

lilomar (1072448) | more than 6 years ago | (#19990997)

"While filtering and monitoring technologies help parents to screen out offensive content and to monitor their child's online activities, the use of these technologies is far from universal and may not be fool-proof in keeping kids away from adult material," Sen. Inouye said.
Or, to rephrase that:
"There are ways for parents to keep their kids from the stuff we want to censor out, but we don't trust them to do it. Also, those darn kids are to sneaky for their parents to stop."

Whatever happened to letting the parents do their job and parent?

Re:Won't somebody think of the parents? (1)

BukeofHazzard (1133077) | more than 6 years ago | (#19991301)

It is the duty of every parent to dillegently and continuously teach their children to make good decisions, not take away the potential to make mistakes. If, after all that they've taught their children, both in word and by example, their children still make unwise decisions, they didn't teach them as well as they thought, the children are excersizing their agency, or the children are defective. I propose a counter bill to litigate sharply against poor breeding.

Who filters the filterers? (5, Insightful)

mariox19 (632969) | more than 6 years ago | (#19991031)

We have Republicans in Congress propositioning their same-sex underage pages, others sleeping with prostitutes, and a Democrat president a few years back getting frisky with his intern and a box of (contraband) Cuban cigars -- and all this makes it onto the news.

Who's going to protect the children from being exposed to the examples from these pinnacles of morality?

Re:Who filters the filterers? (1)

techno-vampire (666512) | more than 6 years ago | (#19991155)

others sleeping with prostitutes...


Oh, I doubt that. From what I understand, the one thing you don't do with a prostitute is sleep.

People have to wake up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19991047)

When will it be the case that the people of the United States wake up from their deep slumber and recognize that the political empire must end?

When?

What is it going to take?

A complete erosion of the constitution and all rights and laws does not seem to awaken them, wars in the name of false ideology and lies doesn't seem to do it, failed leadership and international hatred doesn't seem to stop the snoring.

What will it take?

Filtering the internet?

Outright censorship of certain groups of people will occur in the name of protection of American children?

Last time I checked, the protection children in the United States require is from their government and military recruitment programs.

A public education system with a %30 drop-out rate results in kids being shipped off to war because they can't get other jobs.

Start protecting your investments by educating them, then perhaps after that a discussion can begin around controlling people that know how to read and write.

The first thing they'll filter... mp3 downloads. (5, Insightful)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 6 years ago | (#19991049)

This has nothing to do with the children... It has everything to do with complete control of YOU.

VOTE 3rd party immediately.

Re:The first thing they'll filter... mp3 downloads (5, Insightful)

Khomar (529552) | more than 6 years ago | (#19991137)

No need to vote 3rd party: vote for Ron Paul [ronpaul2008.com]. He is basically a libertarian running as a Republican. The more I listen to the guy, the more I like him.

Idiots... (1)

ameyer17 (935373) | more than 6 years ago | (#19991061)

The problem with filtering is that it blocks a lot of legitimate content that shouldn't be blocked, and lets a lot of content that probably whould be blocked if the filter was behaving as the people who implemented it intended. For example, Microsoft's download page [theregister.co.uk] Also, forcing filtering on everyone is certainly contrary to the first amendment.

Great Firewall of China (3, Insightful)

ndogg (158021) | more than 6 years ago | (#19991067)

Wasn't the Great Firewall of China implemented to "protect the children?"

Hmm...

Stop the presses! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19991107)

A political story that doesn't have a loaded slam about republicans or GWB in it on the front page? I think I've seen everything now.

Where's kdawson? We need to rectify this immediately.

Re:Stop the presses! (-1, Flamebait)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 6 years ago | (#19991203)

oh please.. you use this to further your lame republican agenda? Go the fuck away!. There are far bigger issues at hand, that require a little more depth than your silly puppet show politics.

Go play your "liberal media" conspiracy shit somewhere else. That stuff is old and tired. There are real problems in this world, and in this country (USA). If you are gonna sit there and play "i know you are but what am i", take that shit back to the third grade. Sit this one out, there are bigger problems that you cant comprehend at this stage of the game. We'll call you when we play tiddly winks.

While you were being told what to think and do... you mindlessly gave away everything.

Absolutely Outrageous Proposal (4, Insightful)

nhz (992573) | more than 6 years ago | (#19991147)

Is this really how the U.S. government thinks it should regulate Internet communication and content?

Let us ban internet content deemed obscene to save our sensitive childrens' eyes. What standards should we use?...Oh, of course, we already have the FCC's handy guidelines for obscene content on over-the-air TV and cable TV broadcasts. Let us just use a similar definition of obscene content to filter out the internet. That is very convenient since the FCC already has a lot of experience in this area, and of course we can apply old laws to new mediums in which they were never intended to regulate.

Oh, but how will we enforce these new filtering laws? We need to remove anonymity with internet postings (technologically, almost impossible, and if implemented this will essentially remove the best form of communication for whistle blowers that exists). Also, we need to block all foreign internet content if that is obscene, so maybe we should build a whitelist of sites without offensive content...

...and after 6 months, let's add certain political speech (i.e. views of those not in power) to the definition of obscene.

End sarcasm.

...and we continue to slide down the slippery slope...

Re:Absolutely Outrageous Proposal (1)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 6 years ago | (#19991245)

BTW those FCC handy guidelines.. hasnt stopped teenagers from fucking, sucking, drinking, smoking, drugs, or what i call... just growing up.

You know... that thing Mommy and Daddy did once... before they forgot about all of it in shame.

They will not take my precious bodily fluids!

And people think the second amendment is outdated? (5, Insightful)

m0nkyman (7101) | more than 6 years ago | (#19991163)

Apparently so are the rest of them. Specifically the first and tenth....

It's becoming increasingly apparent that the second might need to be taken out and exercised in the near future. :(

Re:And people think the second amendment is outdat (1)

PinkyGigglebrain (730753) | more than 6 years ago | (#19991405)

"It's becoming increasingly apparent that the second might need to be taken out and exercised in the near future. :("

The really sad part is that your probably right.

Citizens call for Universal Senator Filtering (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19991185)

At the end of a major LUG today the members all endorsed a bipartisan plan to introduce universal senator filtering. Under the filtering plan no senator judged to have a tech-iq less than 150 would be allowed to speak or vote about technology issues. Hopes are that such powerful bipartisan legislation would lead to a safer internet for personal rights.

The same can be said of the postal system (5, Insightful)

dircha (893383) | more than 6 years ago | (#19991201)

"While filtering and monitoring technologies help parents to screen out offensive content and to monitor their child's online activities, the use of these technologies is far from universal and may not be fool-proof in keeping kids away from adult material"

And the same can be said of the fucking postal system.

While it's true that parents can screen the letters that arrive at and are sent from their home post office box to somewhat guard against their children using the postal system to solicit, receive, and exchange adult material, the practice of screening by parents is farm from universal and even when applied may not be fool-proof.

We had better start filtering and monitoring all domestic mail as well. And, my God, what about international mail? We'll have to screen that for sure, maybe even just stop it all.

And, and, ...oh God no!! What about satellite dishes and even shortwave! Those porn terrorists could be beaming it directly into our homes. Why if a minor were to come into the possession of a electro-magnetic wave receiving device, it could be the end of civilization as we know it!

this is why (3, Insightful)

woodchip (611770) | more than 6 years ago | (#19991219)

This is exactly why I think being "bi-partisan" is overrated.

Re:this is why (5, Interesting)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 6 years ago | (#19991329)

Or as Lewis Black put it: "Republicans and Democrats, working together. The only thing stupider than a Republican, or a Democrat, is when these little pricks work together."

Double Edged Sword (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19991223)

All the usual freedom shills come out of the closet when things like this are mentioned. Fact is, the technology to deliver this level of security across the whole internet is being developed and policies are being proposed. It's just one available tool as part of the prevention, detection, and enforcement loop. Think about that the next time you sit behind a firewall, a "secure by design" OS, and pick up your email from your ISP spam filtered email.

Pure freedoom is scope to do anything. World doesn't work like that. Your freedom is someone else's pain. It's why food mass produced food is regulated up the wazoo. One botulism riddled sandwich at home just kills you. Repeat the same trick in a restaurant and a 100 people die. It's the same as the difference between a one time hack and the software they bung in pacemakers.

In fact, what really, really annoys me about this freedom talk all the time, as well as the insensitive domestic reporting of foreign affairs, is the incredible destabilising influence it can have on communities and, in some cases, entire nations. The uprising in Iraq at the end of the first Gulf war, nonsense with China and, more lately, with Iran. It's the same sort of thing with road rage and corporate misconduct. People copy people even if it's wrong or inappropriate.

Freedom? You can't handle it. Plato was right.

Re:Double Edged Sword (-1, Flamebait)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 6 years ago | (#19991323)

"Think about that the next time you sit behind a firewall, a "secure by design" OS, and pick up your email from your ISP spam filtered email."

all of which i can turn off at will you fuckwad. I would comment on the rest of the nonsense you typed, but none of it made a single shred of sense.

the best i could glean from it was this "In fact, what really, really annoys me about this freedom talk" - sounds like you hate freedom asshole, move to fucking north korea and see how you like it.

sucky eyephone sales (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19991271)

How come there is no post on slashdot about the dismal_iphone sales???? When did the fanbois buy /.? And the lame lameness filter doesnt work that great either......just as a few more words and it will be broken,

time to buy websense stocks. (1, Insightful)

lawn.ninja (1125909) | more than 6 years ago | (#19991307)

I'm buying stock in websense tonight. Because if they think they can control it then the answer is obviously websense.

Might This Be.. (4, Interesting)

BlueStrat (756137) | more than 6 years ago | (#19991365)

Might this be the first step towards legislating mandatory adoption of Trusted Computing as a way of controlling the internet and content, using the tried-and-true "think of the children!" method of bulldozing reasoned opposition by those that prefer their computers do what *they* want, instead of what corporations and the government wants?

For those unfamiliar, here's a link to an EFF page on Trusted Computing.

http://www.eff.org/Infrastructure/trusted_computin g/20031001_tc.php [eff.org]

Here's another link to an excellent piece by Ross Anderson.

http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html [cam.ac.uk]

Not trying to be all tinfoil-hat-like, but it seems these days that it's trumped-up issues like this that precede an attempt to limit freedoms and increase control of the population. Awareness of these possibilities is the first and most important step to preventing a world none of us wants to live in.

Cheers!

Strat

You people aren't cynical enough! (5, Interesting)

Software Geek (1097883) | more than 6 years ago | (#19991367)

RTFA! The senate did not, in fact, pass a law banning or filtering anything. They commissioned a study to propose alternatives. That is the politician's polite way of saying "I'm not going to do anything meaningful for you today. Come back in two years, after I get re-elected."

Vote Quimby!

Ben was right (0)

hcmtnbiker (925661) | more than 6 years ago | (#19991373)

I'm reminded of a Ben Franklin quote:

Those who give up freedom for temporary safety deserve neither freedom nor safety.

Just Execute Child Pornographers and Identity (0, Flamebait)

tjstork (137384) | more than 6 years ago | (#19991379)

Really, if you just executed like a 1000 people a year that are caught making kiddy porn, that would put a pretty big damper on the whole thing. Just shoot them all. Go after criminals, not the rest of us.

Threatened (2, Interesting)

Howitzer86 (964585) | more than 6 years ago | (#19991383)

As a 3d artist I feel threatened by this desire to filter and monitor the internet. Look on CGTalk, there are tons of nude 3d girls and other characters on there. If they start this up then we might have to censor ourselves if we want to post our work online.

The US can be considered dangerous... (1)

Ant P. (974313) | more than 6 years ago | (#19991401)

Does that mean we can filter them out of the net too? Please?

The best proactive step is education. (1)

rdean400 (322321) | more than 6 years ago | (#19991417)

The best tool against the postdigestive sphincters on the internet is education. Parents need to know what kind of dangers there are, as well as tools that might be able to help them educate their kids. Filtering software should be included with the caveat that it's not foolproof.

Irrelevent (1)

sqrt(2) (786011) | more than 6 years ago | (#19991421)

The Internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.

Also, the USA is not the world, and we don't own the internet. I think there's a lot of politicians that don't understand how the internet works (Big surprise that Mr. Stevens' name comes up in the article. Tubes, etc), that it's a global network and that's how you get inane laws like this proposed. How about we have some personal responsibility and expect parents to monitor their own children's online behavior, and not rely on the government to do that for us because I'm and adult, I don't need MY internet to be filtered at all.

Blind the children (1)

bobonut (1114683) | more than 6 years ago | (#19991427)

While it doesn't add much more, TFA doesn't link to the actual press release it cites throughout the body of the article which is here [senate.gov]. When will politicians and parents for that matter learn that in many cases sheltering your children rather than educating them is a mistake? From personal experience my parents censorship only made it all the more thrilling when I finally decided to do break their rules by first watching TV shows they banned and later engaging in underage drinking and other forbidden activities.

So it's true then (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19991435)

We ARE working hard and doing out damnest best toward the grand cause of creating a whole new generation of sissies. -jkol

The Great Firewall of the USA (1)

shaitand (626655) | more than 6 years ago | (#19991441)

They have something like this in China right? Filtering technology to protect their populous and children from material the government deems immoral?

Internet to move away from the state (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19991447)

Maybe this might start a move away from the US, why house your servers there

the federal government's responsibilities (1)

mateomiguel (614660) | more than 6 years ago | (#19991503)

I would like to propose that the federal government cannot protect children, and that it should not even consider protecting children. It should delegate such responsibilities to the parents of said children, in the same way that it delegates the care and feeding of children to them. Why? Because the federal government is the most inefficient and bureaucratic mess on the face of the earth, and children must be protected efficiently and without red tape.
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...