Internet Restrictions - For or Against?

I think we have all heard of wikileaks and Julian Assange?
We have also heard reports about suggestions to restrict or censor the Internet in the name of "national security". Here in Australia the government is planning to blacklist certain sites and the blacklist will be kept secret, obstensibly to restrict material and sites that are related to paedophilia. But if the list is secret how would we know what the government has blacklisted and why?

I am quite old and I have a favourite joke that is even older than me.

How do you know when a politician is lying?
Their lips are moving.

So I personally distrust anyone who tries to tell me what I can read, view or discuss as long as I am breaking no laws or inciting others to break laws in the process. We accept certain rules or laws in life and if we are respecting those laws and rules then surely we should be free to gather information from any source and draw our own conclusions. (as long as we break no laws or incite others to do so)

It's a bit like this site. We accept the rules and terms about what we may or may not post and most of us respect the rights of the Administrators to set those rules. So when it comes to the game guides and questions and answers, anyone can post their viewpoints and because we are all able to review their posts we can then respond and critique the OP or responses, which may seem a bit anarchic to some but it is a process of peer review that pretty quickly sorts out who knows what they are talking about and who doesn't.

So I am against restrictions on the Internet in any form. If the authorities believe there is illegal activity occurring on the web, then they are free to pursue, investigate and charge those responsible and if a site could be proved to be criminal in a court of law (peer review again) then have the ability to close it down.

At this stage, it appears that in relation to wikileaks, Julian Assange has broken no laws. He may have upset some people but only by exposing what they would prefer to keep hidden. Yet he has been called a criminal, a terrorist and some have even called for him to be "taken out".

Anyway, I am interested to see what others think about Internet restrictions and as this is an issue that I think we could debate for weeks and never change an-other's opinions, I would prefer if you only posted your own views and why you hold them. feel free to try and convince others of the wisdom of your choices but please accept that everyone is free to form their own point of view.

I am for internet restrictions if viewing the material will directly harm our troops, or government.

Otherwise, i believe self-censorship should be exericised.

For example: Being allowed to view classified military documents: no.

Being allowed to (but choseing not to) view such licencious things as ****ography, or other materials of that nature: yes.

~John

I agree with you there, Rodri. We do have the freedom to view whatever we want within legal limits.

That very freedom is also why a filter is there in most or all major search engines, that way we can control what we see because we choose to avoid such materials.

As for posting it, the line gets a bit fuzzy there. Posting something legal but also meant to disturb the peace is of course abusing those freedoms and therefore I won't condone.

However, as I said, that's where the line gets fuzzy. Is this man truly disturbing the peace? Or is he merely trying to get a very legitimate point across to his viewers (whoever they may be)?

I would have to say, that as much as I like the idea of full disclosure, if it involves information that may harm innocent lives, or can be used to get to other information that does such, I'd have to support restrictions. Not full out bans.

Whilst I agree that governments have the need to maintain some secrecy in regard to the military and some other areas, I feel that just because their own security systems were breached by persons unknown that is not my doing.

For me it is like being assumed guilty of a crime without any proof at all to substantiate my guilt. If I am innocent of any crime then why is my internet access (and probably, as a side effect, speed) being restricted by anyone?

There are a plethora of laws already in regard to espionage and all the other illegal stuff, so why not use the legal system to pursue the criminals instead of playing nanny on me? All I can think of is that this is either a reactionary response by lazy governments or they have secrets that they really don't want people to know because their own actions are illegal and they wish to cover up their crimes.

If these leaks had come to light in the mainstream media would the publisher be liable for prosecution and proposals be made for restrictions on them? I think not, seeing as most people have read or heard about the wikileaks and their contents through the mainstream media anyway.

honestly i have only heard fringe reports "omg have you heard about what the wikileaks guy said this week.." and thats where i tune it out, what do i care if the world finds out who is spying on whome? but it would seem that i should care if my liberties are going to be restricted.

so let me come in to this topic with out an opinion, with out prior information, with out anything but an open mind.

and tell me, what is there to prove he wasnt set up to do this just so that there could be "just cause" to "censurer" the internet.

I think the info should never have been leaked to wikileaks. That was a failure of internal security.

I fully support the publishing of all the material by wikileaks, once the info was in their hands. I think all the people involved in the released correspondences should own what they said. People that are mad that they are being held accountable for THEIR OWN WORDS need to just shut the hell up.

People calling wikileaks a terrorist organization are just plain stupid. People calling this a diplomatic 9/11 event are belittling the thousands of victims of 9/11. The two events are not even close to being comparable.


I'm glad the info was published. I hope this may serve as motivation to politicians to walk the walk behind the scenes, and not just talk the talk in public. Say what you mean, and mean what you say. I hope this transparency leads to an increase in honesty and integrity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by imnothere

honestly i have only heard fringe reports "omg have you heard about what the wikileaks guy said this week.." and thats where i tune it out, what do i care if the world finds out who is spying on whome? but it would seem that i should care if my liberties are going to be restricted.

so let me come in to this topic with out an opinion, with out prior information, with out anything but an open mind.

and tell me, what is there to prove he wasnt set up to do this just so that there could be "just cause" to "censurer" the internet.

---

This is a rumour that I have heard as well but I think it is more of a case of a political over-reaction to some unpleasant exposure. I have never seen a wikileaks site either and all the disclosures I have read are in the mainstream media. No-one is questioning the mainstream media's right to publish these leaks but Julian Assange is being called a criminal for publishing them online. Is it a double standard? Is it a plot to silence critics? Is it just a media beat-up? I don't know but I know how I feel about restrictions on my freedom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rodri

No-one is questioning the mainstream media's right to publish these leaks but Julian Assange is being called a criminal for publishing them online.

---

If he is convicted for publishing the material online, then they should also be convicted for spreading the material across national television, and international media networks. The news shows gave the material more publicity than it would have ever gotten just sitting on the wikileaks site.

true enough, the first i heard about it was from NPR while i was over at my parents this weekend. my mom was all fired up about it and i was clueless. granted i'd rather stay clueless about what ever gets my mom fired up but sometimes thats not possible. like any time i'm around her.

Internet restrictions should never be considered. To me, Wikileaks is probably the embodiment of freedom of speech and whistle blowing as of today which makes me wonder why everyone seems so angry over him. He did not take the information himself. He only acquired it from leaks within the respective governments.

By restricting the internet, you restrict the rights of speech and privacy.
Living in a self-claimed free society, such actions would be abhorrent and counterproductive.

http://i.imgur.com/gawiT.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jurnis

As for posting it, the line gets a bit fuzzy there. Posting something legal but also meant to disturb the peace is of course abusing those freedoms and therefore I won't condone.

---

Do you believe in the Civil Rights Movement? It disrupted (and still disrupts to some) the peace but out of it came perhaps equality before the law. Activists abused their freedoms so your opinion should translate to the same result and opinion.

i many cases activist USED their freedoms to show that they should have them when they didnt. sitting where they did to show how restrictive it is to say "only this sociocultural group can sit here"
it was the sit ins and the peace marches that did the most for the freedom movements.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by imnothere

i many cases activist USED their freedoms to show that they should have them when they didnt. sitting where they did to show how restrictive it is to say "only this sociocultural group can sit here"
it was the sit ins and the peace marches that did the most for the freedom movements.

---

^^ This

Traditionally, a martyr is far more effective than a vigilante. I don't mean you have to die. I'm just saying that those who suffer for a cause seem to affect greater change than those who inflict suffering.

Who are the greatest catalysts for change in recent generations? Ghandi and MLK would be at the top of the list. They peacefully suffered for their causes. A small mob may rally behind someone who throws paint on a lady wearing a fur coat. But, a large population will empathize with a man forcibly removed from a peaceful demonstration.

the black panthers didnt get a holiday. your not going to find droves of school children all grateful to them for a day to play up trees and out of doors or on their wii if their parents wont let them play out side

One can interrupt peace without resorting to violence...

What peace are we talking about?
There are conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan and serious risk of another conflict developing in Korea right now. Not to mention the possibillity of more conflicts in Yemen and Iran. Of course, let's not forget about the situation of ongoing conflict between Israel and Pallestine. Over the top of these is 'The War on Terror'. These are only the major conflicts/possible conflicts involving western nations. I won't go in to all the other smaller wars that are happening at this time. Peace is a myth right now.

Anyway, this is supposed to be about internet restrictions but let's keep in mind that restrictions can be used to keep us from learning too much information or hearing alternative viewpoints of world events.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rodri

What peace are we talking about?

---

All forms of peace. Industrial, global, societal, economic, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rodri

Peace is a myth right now.

---

Peace isn't necessarily a myth, it's just relative.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rodri

Anyway, this is supposed to be about internet restrictions but let's keep in mind that restrictions can be used to keep us from learning too much information or hearing alternative viewpoints of world events.

---

Security and liberty are the opposites of each other. For one to be secure, one must give up his or her freedoms. For one to be free, he or she must not be protected.

Personally i am against wikileaks and Julian Assange. There was better ways he could have put out the information without putting peoples lives at risk. But i am against Censorship of the internet in any form. Once the government decides who and what can go on the internet you walk a very fine line.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moghedien

Personally i am against wikileaks and Julian Assange. There was better ways he could have put out the information without putting peoples lives at risk. But i am against Censorship of the internet in any form. Once the government decides who and what can go on the internet you walk a very fine line.

---

you just contradicted your self

you cant say "what he did is bad, but no one should be the judge of what is good or bad"

its one or the other. "i pass judgment on your actions" OR "no one should be able to pass judgment on the actions of another"

Whilst it is true that we give up some of our freedom to governments willingly to allow them to govern, we don't expect to be treated like potential enemies of the state by the same government that is supposed to be keeping us safe.

It seems strange to me that some governments use the excuse of 'keeping us safe' as an excuse to bring in more and more restrictions and invasions of privacy, when they are actually sending troops to fight in conflicts and look to be planning on even more conflicts to start up. Surely if these governments were really just interested in keeping their own populations safe, not starting wars might be a good start?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by imnothere

you just contradicted your self

you cant say "what he did is bad, but no one should be the judge of what is good or bad"

its one or the other. "i pass judgment on your actions" OR "no one should be able to pass judgment on the actions of another"

---

Thats not what i said. I personally don't like Julian Assange or what he is doing but i support freedom on the internet. So even though you post objectionable material online that i am opposed to i support the right to do that. If that makes sense.

@Moghedien: ah yes that does. thank you for clairfying

@Rod: so your one of those parents who doesnt leash their child in public "for their own safety" glad to know i'm not the only one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by imnothere

@Moghedien: ah yes that does. thank you for clairfying

@Rod: so your one of those parents who doesnt leash their child in public "for their own safety" glad to know i'm not the only one.

---

Sorry for this derail post.

Are you a mother????

lol cant you tell by the way i act that being a mother is important to me, weather i am one or not. i think that parenting is a major responsibility because parents are the guardians of the family, and families are the building blocks of every nation. they are the mini versos of the government where a person learns not just what their place in the world is, but how to find it.
i think its sad that where i live all too often the "parenting" is handed over to government and schools things that should be taught by loving parents are brushed over in crowded class rooms or passed off as unimportant.
and while i agree that its not the governments place to teach these things, that it shouldnt be up to the school system to cover. that means that the parents need to step up and take responsibility for the lives they say they are willing to support.

;) see it wasnt a de-rail post

It's totally off the rails, thanks very much!
Anyway, I really don't know if any authority has the knowledge to fully restrict the internet anymore. A recent demonstration I saw tested 3 teenage boys against the proposed filter here in Australia and it took all of them less than 4 seconds to access pr0n via the use of proxy servers, private networks and such.

Also, if you refer to this recent post of mine, you can see that anyone with a reasonable working knowledge of computers and Linux programming could create their own servers quite cheaply from readilly available game consoles. Once you have servers, all you need is a connection point and electricity and you are running your own IP. So the restrictions would only limit those who are ignorant of the alternatives which is not the groups that the governments are trying to target anyway. It is moreso the general public who are merely seeking information and have no criminal intent at all.

You dont even need a linux os. All you have to do is set static ip on your router and spoof it. So it says you are in another country or state. Thats one way people get pass Online Gambling laws. There will always be ways to get around internet restrictions how ever the vast majority of people do not have the knowledge to do it.

The media has been allowed to publish whatever they get their hands on without fear of prosecution since forever. And that is good, and this is no different. I can't speak about other governments, but that is how it should be in AMERICA, the government should instead focus on improving its own security.

No, the media is censored. It does not publish whater it wants to. It faces censorship from the government just like TV and radio.

The internet is a medium for communication and information. Just like TV, Radio, and printed material. All of which have restrictions. The internet should not be anarchy. It needs rules and censorship just like anything else.
The internet is like a open forum radio show. Anyone can talk at anytime. But the radio show needs to be monitored and censored so it does not get filled with advertisers 24x7, so terriorist groups do not use it to send secret messages, so people do not use it to cause problems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by imnothere

lol cant you tell by the way i act that being a mother is important to me, weather i am one or not. i think that parenting is a major responsibility because parents are the guardians of the family, and families are the building blocks of every nation. they are the mini versos of the government where a person learns not just what their place in the world is, but how to find it.
i think its sad that where i live all too often the "parenting" is handed over to government and schools things that should be taught by loving parents are brushed over in crowded class rooms or passed off as unimportant.
and while i agree that its not the governments place to teach these things, that it shouldnt be up to the school system to cover. that means that the parents need to step up and take responsibility for the lives they say they are willing to support.

;) see it wasnt a de-rail post

---

Then this'll be one.
TL;DR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LaoOmologo

Then this'll be one.
TL;DR

---

short answer was "i'm not telling"


the internet restricts me from divulging personal information.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by imnothere

short answer was "i'm not telling"


the internet restricts me from divulging personal information.

---

tl;dr...........

My finger itches over the negative rep button.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rodri

My finger itches over the negative rep button.

---

And... why is that?

you know why.

back on track.
what kind of restrictions would be permissible? i mean there is already a large market out there for "parental safety" programs that filter the internet on a home level.
how much difference is there between "elected" freedom restrictions and mandatory ones enacted and policed by a government?

The Internet should not be a platform for anarchy and "say what ever you want". Personally I think it needs to be compartmentalized. Made into "rooms" so to speak. And information can NEVER cross over rooms. Information needs to be tagged. The entire Internet Protocol needs to change. It needs to include other layers in the IP stack that will allow for all data packets to be "tagged" with more information thus more rules can be applied to how that packet is handled. For example, all government network devices will tag packets with a government stamp. Only other government network devides will be able to open the packets. This makes the secirity tie into hardware. So if people want to access governemnt info they will actually need a government network hardware device, like a government router, government switch, etc... That way if info is leaked again only people who are on governemtn networks would be able to read it, not the entire public.
Also, tags for normal users and public networks. Companies will make network cards and devices for the general public as well as they do today.
Too much for me to write all down. But information flow and containment is the first step.

The other question is how do you police the internet when the amount of information being sent around is so much. One of the major excuses given at the time as to why the intelligence organisations were unable to stop the 9/11 (I hate that term) attacks was that the amount of information they were collecting was far beyond their capacities to analyse. So more Big Brother serves what purpose? I mean if you can't analyse and investigate the clues you are already getting, what possible use is more information to pile on to the mountain of un-analysed information that you are already collecting?

If it's about security then tighten government security. If it's about stopping criminal activity then put some resources into policing. Restrictions are simply about restricting.
That is restricting what you can read, what I can read and what someone else might read that we wrote. There are laws about publishing certain types of material and those laws can be applied to the internet within national borders but to restrict your whole population from viewing certain sites from a secret list for whatever reasons the authorities deem suitable at the time smacks of tyrrany to me and it is the duty and responsibility of every citizen in a Democracy to guard against tyrrany in any form.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by imnothere

you know why.

---

Out of track again. Sorry.
No, I don't. Did he mean me? :confused:

JP, I'm not sure I even understand what you are suggesting. Governments can encrypt and password their emails and any site can have limited access, depending on permissions and passwords. Every site is already it's own "room". Some are open to everyone, some are open to members only and some are invitation only. Laws still apply to the internet and internet content and law enforcement agencies use the internet to track down illegal activities. That is just normal but if a restrictive filter is put in place then all that changes is normal people are restricted by an arbitrary body on what sites they can access and may never know the reason why certain sites are blocked. This could quite easily lead to all sorts of abuses of power, up to and including blocking any site that protests the restrictions or shows any signs of political opposition.

I agree with Rodri it will lead to abuse in power. I am not willing to sacrifice my freedoms so its a little more convient for Government to track down the "bad guys." Everytime you sacrifice a right to help "protect" you from whatever threat that may be it will never come back.

ok, this is getting annoying... I just posted a huge post about my views on this... and it went poof when i submitted it?

So, in summary of my missing post... Whenever anybody is given any power over what people can access or publish via the internet they will abuse it. China has done it, even australia which has been caught blocking various political websites. Everyone should have the right for equal and unlimited access to the internet. All information that is anywhere out there should be free.

now, i need to find my missing post....