Red Devil
23-01-2008, 01:35 PM
I got this in an email newsletter from a highly respected local source; and it ties in with a chat I was having recently with K4 and versa about the use of double names, IP's etc and how does it get spotted, stopped etc. The last paragraph is quite significant, basically butt out and **** off!!
Last week Jacqui Smith promised 'technical measures' to stop the web from spreading terrorist propaganda and the UK ISP industry took in a deep breath. Breaking in a new home secretary is always difficult for the Internet Service Providers Association (ISPA). The task of explaining why, almost by its very design, the internet is effectively uncensorable comes with every new Minister.
Websites that describe how to make a nuclear bomb from household appliances and sticky-back plastic can spring up anywhere, anytime and under any jurisdiction.UK ISPs can take them down when they appear on their servers but one assumes any terrorist that poses any real threat would be more cunning than to incite Jihad on the free web space he got with his home broadband package.
Perhaps the Government should put up a few fake sites themselves with information designed to identify those misguided enough to attempt DIY bomb construction.
Formulate devices to pre-detonate in the safety of the terrorist's own home while removing significant amounts of facial hair. The police can then just arrest anyone they see wandering around with no eyebrows.
This would perhaps be better than trying to block access to militant Islamic sites. Preserving the cornerstone of democracy, freedom of speech, is more important.
We need to distinguish between material that is illegal such as child pornography, and content that is merely objectionable, such how to create an explosion.
My school chemistry teacher would have been in jail long ago if spreading knowledge of explosive formulas was a crime. China keeps the largest population of net users behind a firewall, blocking any anti-establishment content from reaching its subjects. What is the difference between them blocking content about freeing Tibet and us blocking that from Islamic extremists?
No technology yet invented can distinguish between activism and terrorism.
Deciding what sites to block would be a manual process and before you know it you'll have reinvented the Stasi thought police and we'll all be too scared to blog and attract their attention.
To try and censor the internet is fool-hardy for companies and brands too, as any organisation that has tried to get unflattering content removed will know.
You don't have to be a techie to setup an anti-brand website anymore. Thanks to the social networking revolution, groups of like minded people can conspire to create significantly damaging content with impunity.
You've just got to hope more good things are written about your brand than bad things, which should be the case if your company mostly does no evil.
In this respect we have the internet to thank for the resurgence of corporate social responsibility. Demonstrating ethical practise can now improve profits!
It's perhaps the Government that needs banning from interfering with the internet as anything they do try will end up inconveniencing the vast majority, while the terrorists remain unaffected.
Last week Jacqui Smith promised 'technical measures' to stop the web from spreading terrorist propaganda and the UK ISP industry took in a deep breath. Breaking in a new home secretary is always difficult for the Internet Service Providers Association (ISPA). The task of explaining why, almost by its very design, the internet is effectively uncensorable comes with every new Minister.
Websites that describe how to make a nuclear bomb from household appliances and sticky-back plastic can spring up anywhere, anytime and under any jurisdiction.UK ISPs can take them down when they appear on their servers but one assumes any terrorist that poses any real threat would be more cunning than to incite Jihad on the free web space he got with his home broadband package.
Perhaps the Government should put up a few fake sites themselves with information designed to identify those misguided enough to attempt DIY bomb construction.
Formulate devices to pre-detonate in the safety of the terrorist's own home while removing significant amounts of facial hair. The police can then just arrest anyone they see wandering around with no eyebrows.
This would perhaps be better than trying to block access to militant Islamic sites. Preserving the cornerstone of democracy, freedom of speech, is more important.
We need to distinguish between material that is illegal such as child pornography, and content that is merely objectionable, such how to create an explosion.
My school chemistry teacher would have been in jail long ago if spreading knowledge of explosive formulas was a crime. China keeps the largest population of net users behind a firewall, blocking any anti-establishment content from reaching its subjects. What is the difference between them blocking content about freeing Tibet and us blocking that from Islamic extremists?
No technology yet invented can distinguish between activism and terrorism.
Deciding what sites to block would be a manual process and before you know it you'll have reinvented the Stasi thought police and we'll all be too scared to blog and attract their attention.
To try and censor the internet is fool-hardy for companies and brands too, as any organisation that has tried to get unflattering content removed will know.
You don't have to be a techie to setup an anti-brand website anymore. Thanks to the social networking revolution, groups of like minded people can conspire to create significantly damaging content with impunity.
You've just got to hope more good things are written about your brand than bad things, which should be the case if your company mostly does no evil.
In this respect we have the internet to thank for the resurgence of corporate social responsibility. Demonstrating ethical practise can now improve profits!
It's perhaps the Government that needs banning from interfering with the internet as anything they do try will end up inconveniencing the vast majority, while the terrorists remain unaffected.