View Full Version : Government and the Wild, Wild, West
j4bberw0ck
13-Aug-07, 09:03
A Committee of the House of Lords decided last week that the internet and (I presume, specifically) the Web are being invaded by organised crime and are just seething with fraudsters, hackers, spyware writers, terrorists, phishers, conmen and Nigerian bank presidents who've selected just you from a cast of millions to receive $100 million.
So now they think the Government should act and require ISPs to protect the public from all these ills of the modern age.
Should they, or not? And why do you think they should (or shouldn't, as appropriate)?
Boozeburglar
13-Aug-07, 09:11
There is a big difference between the Government controlling content directly and requiring ISPs to do so.
I am all for ISPs being responsible and tackling scams; or helping identify misuse of the internet and passing information on to the authorities.
Should they be required to do so? Well, if it is expensive they would need to be required; otherwise in a profit led enterprise they would not bother.
If it is a case of closing down the conmen, porn sites and other such operations then the ISPs are definately needing to act. As it is when one site is closed down they just move to a new server and start all over again.
That certainly needs reinforcing.
But I am quite capable of ensuring that I don't reply to that email from Obujima Kolowango offering me the opportunity to help save the fortune of some diamond miner who died ten years ago or logging into 'my bank's' website to carry out a 'security check'.
Well said, MadPict!
I too, am perfectly happy to send a 2 word reply to the lady from the Ivory Coast who wants me to look after her 17 yr old daughter in return for a lion's share of 8 & 1/2 million...... even the WHOLE share wouldn't make me do it, I already have ONE 17 yr old, (and been there before twice) does she not think I'm suffering enough as it is?
And yes, I'm sorry she's suffering from a very rare form of Leukaemia, which is incurable & means that she will die in 3 months, but if her daughter has all that money, she'll be a very wealthy young girl in her own right & certainly wouldn't want me breathing down her neck telling her to clean her room, would she?
Like it's said before, if it SOUNDS too good to be true, then it probably is!
But seriously, the ISP's should already be looking at what their services are being used for, and no it wouldn't be a mammoth job for them to do - in the meantime, it's up to us to be vigilant & up to us to educate our young ones in the Whole Web World.
Julie
Personally, I would have voted for the second option as I am quite IT literate. However, there are a lot (an awful lot) of numnies out there who are adequate users but do not understand the technicalities and precautions involved. Some of my friends think that simply buying Antivirus is all they need to do. They do not understand that it should be updated and re-run at least once a week. They also have no concept of spyware and scams.
We need a police force to protect most of the public; we also need the gov't to do something to protect the majority of the public. I (and most orgers) can probably take care of ourselves.
Lolabelle
13-Aug-07, 12:35
I voted yes please because I am one of the numnies who really is quite IT illiterate and most likely the other kind too. So I need all the help that I can get. [lol]
A Committee of the House of Lords decided last week that the internet and (I presume, specifically) the Web are being invaded by organised crime and are just seething with fraudsters, hackers, spyware writers, terrorists, phishers, conmen and Nigerian bank presidents who've selected just you from a cast of millions to receive $100 million.
So now they think the Government should act and require ISPs to protect the public from all these ills of the modern age.
Should they, or not? And why do you think they should (or shouldn't, as appropriate)?
They can just but out all of them. The internet is not theirs to legislate, they didn't create it they don't control it, it has no borders.
ISPs should have common carrier status just like the Post Office and the telephone companies, they provide a connection that's all, they aren't responsible for what is sent over it.
I voted yes please because I am one of the numnies who really is quite IT illiterate and most likely the other kind too. So I need all the help that I can get. [lol]
So we create a wonderful new world of freedom then one day a load of AOL users come along wanting to join in and in the spirit of freedom they are welcomed. Then they decide they want rid of the bits they don't like and take everyone's freedom away so they can have it all to themselves and have a safe little virtual copy of their familiar meat space world.
Thanks a bunch.
When you trade freedom for security you end up with neither.
They can just but out all of them. The internet is not theirs to legislate, they didn't create it they don't control it, it has no borders.
ISPs should have common carrier status just like the Post Office and the telephone companies, they provide a connection that's all, they aren't responsible for what is sent over it.
Actually Fred, you have a valid point there....
When I get letters asking me to renew my car insurance, buy a conservatory, etc, I throw them in the bin - and I guess it's not much different on here - except some people just can't help themselves & insist on clicking the 'Yes' buttons.....
Again, it's all down to good old common sense & education, I guess!
Julie
Lolabelle
13-Aug-07, 13:40
So we create a wonderful new world of freedom then one day a load of AOL users come along wanting to join in and in the spirit of freedom they are welcomed. Then they decide they want rid of the bits they don't like and take everyone's freedom away so they can have it all to themselves and have a safe little virtual copy of their familiar meat space world.
Thanks a bunch.
When you trade freedom for security you end up with neither.
Once again kisses to you Fred, you always put things in such good perspective. Thanks a bunch to you. :Razz
j4bberw0ck
13-Aug-07, 14:00
I too, am perfectly happy to send a 2 word reply to the lady from the Ivory Coast
You're mad if you opened the email to read it; you very possibly just validated your email address to a server somewhere and ensured you popped up on the next list of email addresses sold to the next spammer along.......
But seriously, the ISP's should already be looking at what their services are being used for, and no it wouldn't be a mammoth job for them to do - in the meantime, it's up to us to be vigilant & up to us to educate our young ones in the Whole Web World.Would you be prepared to pay a massively increased monthly subscription to pay for it? From a technical standpoint, it's more or less impossible for ISPs to monitor what all their users are doing, and act on every potential danger that might come from any one user's specific actions. From a moral viewpoint, by what right does a private or public company (your ISP) tell you what you can and can't do with your internet connexion?
If it is a case of closing down the conmen, porn sites and other such operations then the ISPs are definately needing to act. As it is when one site is closed down they just move to a new server and start all over again.
The alternative is...............? And with respect, who are you to say that people aren't allowed to look at or buy porn? What's the most commonly used search term in Google? Yep..... "sex".
I am all for ISPs being responsible and tackling scams; or helping identify misuse of the internet and passing information on to the authorities.
Then how do you control what information they pass to "the authorities"? I would have thought that current stories about the Stasi coming from researchers who're piecing together millions of shredded documents, and finding that one person in every seven in East Germany was a Stasi informer - would put anyone off that idea.
Should they be required to do so? Well, if it is expensive they would need to be required; otherwise in a profit led enterprise they would not bother.There's no practical way to do it. VPNs, Anonymiser services and so on would drive a coach and horses through any attempt to regulate.
If the alternative is government monitoring, then you're faced with another massive attack on your freedom (which is already under huge and largely silent threat) because of course for the government to take monitoring upon itself puts us in the same lovely group of countries as North Korea, China and Iran. And you can bet your backside that once the government takes such powers, they'll specifically include provisions to have access to your hard disk(s) and other data repositories. And once they do that, who's to tell where the information goes or what it's used for?
Add a national ID scheme, DNA database (both linked to the security apparatus of the unelected European elite, naturally), loss of habeas corpus, unified medical / tax / social security records and George Orwell barely scratched the surface of the State-dominated world we'd live in.
It's not all that often that Fred and I have been in what I think is complete agreement but on this one - definitely.
It's not all that often that Fred and I have been in what I think is complete agreement but on this one - definitely.
Not often that I'm totally in agreement with both you and Fred -first time for everything. :) :lol:
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsherris http://forum.caithness.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?p=255177#post255177)
I too, am perfectly happy to send a 2 word reply to the lady from the Ivory Coast
You're mad if you opened the email to read it; you very possibly just validated your email address to a server somewhere and ensured you popped up on the next list of email addresses sold to the next spammer along.......
Quote:
But seriously, the ISP's should already be looking at what their services are being used for, and no it wouldn't be a mammoth job for them to do - in the meantime, it's up to us to be vigilant & up to us to educate our young ones in the Whole Web World.
Would you be prepared to pay a massively increased monthly subscription to pay for it? From a technical standpoint, it's more or less impossible for ISPs to monitor what all their users are doing, and act on every potential danger that might come from any one user's specific actions. From a moral viewpoint, by what right does a private or public company (your ISP) tell you what you can and can't do with your internet connexion?
Hehe, firstly, my main email account is a subscribed MSN account - our outlook account doesn't get used here and the security software we have runs into 4 folders and is used regularly - we've had one minor security scare in the last 9 years, and that was because of a file share problem that my youngest daughter initiated - soon sorted, all was safe. As for adding my email to a spam account, well, you know, that's ok - because the original email went into my spam folder in the first place & only gets checked once a day for any stray emails that I might actually want - and no, I don't get hundreds of spam mails, I get about 10 a week. We probably get more junk mail than that through Royal Mail - normally from Mecca Bingo, begging us to go back!
Secondly, I can still remember the days (about 9 yrs ago) when my quarterly BT bill was on average £1400 - but I was at Uni then & working for an ISP part time, so they picked up the bill - many people didn't, but they had bills of four or five hundred a quarter, & they still paid & still surfed - nope, it wasn't right, but that's how most started. BT rates were 1p a minute off peak.
And thirdly, the ISP's wouldn't have too much expense operating software to catch crime - morally, (and I'm talking extremes here,) using a PC to distribute child pornography & run that sort of business is wrong & is a crime - full stop.
By what right does a private or public company (our ISP's) tell us what we can and can't do with our internet connection that lets us act above the law??
Like I said before, it's up to us to be vigilant and I take full responsibility for my own actions when using my PC.
OK, I'm off me soapbox - kettle beckons ;)
Julie.
The alternative is...............? And with respect, who are you to say that people aren't allowed to look at or buy porn? What's the most commonly used search term in Google? Yep..... "sex".
Sorry, that should have read child porn. I don't mind an adult gaining personal satisfaction by using 'adult' sites - just as I respect the right for them to go into a newsagents and buy a mag off the top shelf.
But the internet is largely unpoliced and certainly you can find material on the 'net which would not be allowed anywhere else.
An example are the recent videos on You Tube of children being assaulted (happy slapped) by other kids and the assaults loaded up for the world to view. There seems to be a distinct lack of any desire by some sites to remove such material and I would welcome giving some 'body' teeth to actually prosecute the hosts of such material.
Boozeburglar
13-Aug-07, 16:36
They can just but out all of them. The internet is not theirs to legislate, they didn't create it they don't control it, it has no borders.
ISPs should have common carrier status just like the Post Office and the telephone companies, they provide a connection that's all, they aren't responsible for what is sent over it.
It is part of the government's responsibility, that we asked them to take, to ensure that we are protected.
Anything broadcast, accessed, downloaded, uploaded within the jurisdiction of our law is subject to that law.
There are regulations regarding the distribution of mail that the Post Office must comply with, and likewise the telecoms groups must not knowingly allow the illegal use of their services.
Why should ISPs be any different?
Like it or not you are bound by the laws of the country you live in, regardless of the fact that the internet has 'no borders'.
It is incredibly easy for your ISP to track what you do online, regardless of how you attempt to circumvent what you think would identify your actions. There is no great expense involved, and the government already indicated it would be prepared to compensate ISPs for the expense of additional technology required.
ISPs are already bound by laws as to how long to retain data and must comply with orders requiring them to release information regarding the use of their services. This has been the case for years.
If you all feel that it is an inaliable right to have freedom to access whatever you want, anonymously, then you have to accept that the protection of your rights guarantees the freedom of the paedophile down the road to continue their abuse of children half way across the world.
Personally I don't see why I have to have access to anything that you would not find in the newsagent or the library.
fred,
ISPs are slightly different to the PO or your telephone company. They host websites as well as provide the access to the interwebnetland. If they are informed about illegal activities using their service then they are or should be obliged to take action.
If you read your ISP TOU/COS/AUP I dare say that it includes such wording as
Services shall not be used:
* for any improper, unlawful, fraudulent, criminal or otherwise illegal activities;
* in a manner which is offensive, abusive, indecent, defamatory, menacing, obscene or harassing;
* for sending of or knowing receipt, upload, download or use of any material which is offensive, abusive, indecent, defamatory, menacing, obscene or harassing;
* in breach of any intellectual property rights, including without limitation copyright;
* in breach of any other third party’s rights such as, without limitation, confidence, privacy or any other rights;
* to make offensive, menacing, nuisance or hoax calls;
* to cause annoyance or needless anxiety;
* to send, provide, facilitate or knowingly receive responses to any spam or unsolicited advertising or promotional material;
* to knowingly or negligently transmit any electronic material (including viruses, worms, Trojans, backdoors or spyware) which shall cause or is likely to cause detriment or harm in any degree to computer systems owned by us or other internet user;
* to knowingly or negligently permit or participate in any mail-bombing or denial of service attacks;
* in a manner that may degrade the performance of the network or services;
* in a manner that results or may result in us being in breach of our legal or statutory/regulatory obligations; or
* for resale to any third party.
If you partake in any 'activity' which is included then you can expect to have your service terminated.
By the same token, is it the responsibility of the Royal Mail to police what I send or receive using snail mail?
If materials which are deemed to be illegal are sent via the post I have yet to hear of a suggestion that the postman/oops/woman should be prosecuted for delivering it.
Should the postal services be expected to open and check every item of mail to see if the contents are "suitable"?
It is up to the law enforcement agencies to trace and prosecute the instigators and users of such material and all they are doing by suggesting it should be the "carriers" who are responsible is taking the easy option.
In effect what they are doing is saying that because tracing the people who provide such material is very difficult then they will not bother but will find a way of taking the easy option and prosecuting the ISPs so they can shout loudly, "Aren't we wonderful, look what we are doing to stop this disgusting material!"
In reality all they are doing is sweeping the matter under the carpet and doing absolutely nothing to deal with the people who are involved in the actual abuse or to protect the children they are abusing.
All this suggestion means is that the authorities can make loud noises claiming credit for cleaning up a vile subject whilst in reality doing absolutely nothing about it.
That is not, however, an excuse for the ISPs to turn a completely blind eye to the subject and not do their best to help stop it but they should not be made scapegoats for the inadequacies of those responsible for dealing with it in the first place.
Hang on Jaws.....
There are clear guidelines as to what you can & can't use Royal Mail for......
We take all legal and safety issues very seriously, and we refuse to carry any of the illegal or harmful items listed below. If they are found in the post, we can return them to the sender or dispose of them. And in some cases, the sender may face prosecution.
Aerosols
Except inhalers with a volume of 50ml or less.
Alcoholic liquids
With alcohol content higher than 70%vol.
Batteries
Batteries which are classed as dangerous goods by the latest edition of the International Civil Aviation Organisation's (ICAO) Technical Instructions.
Butane lighters filled or refills
Clinical and medical waste
Corrosive substances
Counterfeit currency, bank notes and postage stamps
Except copies of old denominations, which are now obsolete and worthless except for collectable value and cannot be passed as tender.
Drugs
Except emergency drugs for medical or scientific purposes. For prescription and over-the-counter medicines please refer to the list of Restricted Goods. (http://www.royalmail.com/link/rm/content1?catId=400036&mediaId=36200679)
Dry Ice
Environmental Waste
Explosives
Filth
For example dirt,waste or refuse.
Flammable liquids
Flammable solids
Gases
1. All flammable compressed gases are prohibited
For example: Blowlamps; Butane; Cigarette Lighters; Ethane; Gas Cylinders for camping stoves; Hydrogen; Methane and Propane.
2. All toxic compressed gases are prohibited
For example: Chlorine; Fluorine etc.
3. All non-flammable compressed gases are prohibited
For example: Air Bags; Carbon Dioxide; Fire Extinguishers containing such gases; Neon and Nitrogen.
Indecent, obscene or offensive material
For example pornographic material.
Living creatures
Except certain insects - see Restricted Goods (http://www.royalmail.com/link/rm/content1?catId=400036&mediaId=36200679)
Lottery tickets
Except UK lottery tickets.
Magnetised material
Matches of any kind
Oxidising substances and organic peroxide
Pathogens
Perfumes and Aftershaves
Perfumes and Aftershaves that are classed as flammable are prohibited. Non-flammable items may be accepted but there are restrictions (http://www.royalmail.com/link/rm/content1?catId=400036&mediaId=36200679) based on alcoholic content.
Poisonous (toxic) and infectious substances
Pesticides
Radioactive materials
Sharp Instruments
Sharp instruments such as knives, gardening and household tools, unless they are properly protected. (http://www.royalmail.com/portal/rm/content1?catId=400044&mediaId=400251)
Solvent-Based Paints and Inks
UN2814 or UN2900 Infectious Substances
Water-Based Paints and Inks
These restrictions apply throughout our UK and International postal service.
So the Royal Mail are showing themselves to be accountable, at least - which is what it would be nice to see the ISP's doing. And yes, they do police the items being transported around the country to a point.
No-one says that the ISP's should be made scapegoats for some tow-rags illegal doings, but neither should they be turning a blind eye to it either - and by installing simple software, they can at least be seen to be acting in a responsible manner, and not acting as aiders & abetters to the WWW crime barons.
In any case, they make more than enough pennies out of us lot, so let them pitch in & help out too - it'll save us on our Council Tax when the cost of the police wage goes down! (As if!) [lol]
Julie
x
Hang on Jaws.....
There are clear guidelines as to what you can & can't use Royal Mail for......
So the Royal Mail are showing themselves to be accountable, at least - which is what it would be nice to see the ISP's doing. And yes, they do police the items being transported around the country to a point.
As do ISPs.
If you go to your ISPs web site you will find a section called Terms of Service laying out what you can and can't do.
No need for a bunch of stuffed shirts in Westminster getting involved.
Huh, fred seems to have me on ignore otherwise he would have read my post on ISP TOU/COS/AUP.........
I am aware that the Royal Mail have conditions of use and also have laws to cover what may be sent via their and other similar services but that does not stop them being used for such things. Hence the "nudge, nudge, wink, wink" teases about getting items in plain brown wrappers.
That being said, the offences are committed by the senders and, if solicited, the receivers of such items and they are the ones prosecuted, not the Royal Mail for providing a service which is being misused.
What is being suggested for ISPs is exactly the same as making the Royal Mail responsible when somebody uses their service to either send or receive unsuitable material rather than the real culprits.
Simply taking the easy way out and shooting the messenger will do absolutely nothing to prevent people either carrying out such things as the abuse of children or prevent their customers from gaining access to such matter.
Simply saying that everything possible has been done to deal with the problem because a few ISPs have been prosecuted is simply a "get out" to avoid having to go to great lengths to trace the abusers and their clients.
Yes, child pornography etc. needs to be stopped but it won’t be done by knee-jerk reactions, gimmicks or by diverting attention away from those directly involved in it.
Huh, fred seems to have me on ignore otherwise he would have read my post on ISP TOU/COS/AUP.........
Uhhh..... sorry, MadPict, didya say summat??
[lol]
Message to Jaws.....
I stand totally corrected - No, I don't believe that the ISP's should be prosecuted for certain customers using the service in an illegal way - what I do believe however, is that they should be more vigilant in policing the use themselves, thereby aiding the powers that be to prosecute the offenders.
Sorry if I maybe worded anything incorrectly - an example of my train of thought is......
If Mr X opened an account with say, BT Broadband... and opened a 'web shop for illegal porn'... then I would seriously hope that BT were onto it using simple to install & use software pretty damn quickly & alerted whatever authorities they needed to to procure a swift arrest and subsequent closure of the site, followed by a satisfying conviction.
At the moment, because the ISP's are turning a blind eye to said activities in the majority, then THAT is what makes them cohorts, and yes, they then should shoulder some responsibilities and blame. If you see what I mean, ....
Oh, it's a lot easier when I just SAY it out loud, than when I type it! Grrrr!
Anyway, that's my opinion
Julie
x
If people didn't look at porn/paedophile sites they would just disappear. If no-one ever replied to a phishing email they would stop. It's like the gutter press only I suppose with more influence - if everyone stopped buying the rags they would cease to exist.
There was a man on tv the other day who got a fright when he responded to a phishing message and lost money (which he later got back). We are warned continually about these things but still there are people who somehow have managed to miss the message.
I opened an email today that I thought was OK and came to one of my addresses that has never had spam before - silly me. Said it was an e-card and it could well have been. Deleted it quickly and of course didn't click any links but expect the damage is done.
It would be nice to think that ISPs could close nasty sites down, block all spam, etc. but fast as they block one another will appear. They'll only stop when no-one responds and somehow I don't think that's going to happen.
Sorry, jsherris, most of that post was general comment rather than aimed particularly at what you had said.
I would suspect that, apart from a few amateurs engaged in "home production" of such matter, the main providers will be skilled at covering their tracks. I am not certain how ISPs work, but I'm certain somebody here will have a good idea, so I don't know how they would cover their tracks but I would think they would find it rather easy or at least know somebody could tell them how. Such people may be despicable but they are far from stupid.
Not being knowledgeable about how such material circulates I would imagine that most of it is passed by way of email rather than on web sites even those which require credit card details as a method of access. I would think that the risk of such site being discovered would be too risky.
I would have thought that most porn is hosted by web hosting companies that aren't ISPs.
Sorry, jsherris, most of that post was general comment rather than aimed particularly at what you had said.......
'S OK, I didn't take it personally, my hide is a lot thicker than that ;)
Julie
No probs. I don't mind biting intentionally but I hate it when it happens by accident. ;)
Crayola, you are probably right. I would suspect that if it was as easy to jump on those responsible as it first appears then the problem would not arise in the first place.
I suspect that, just like the spectre of a terrorist behind every lamp-post is used in an attempt to justify ID Cards for everybody that child porn is being used to persuade people to accept having all their emails and transactions trawled through by nosy Government Officials.
The idea was floated a few years ago that any employee of either national or local government should be able to do exactly that using the excuse of major crime, drug dealing and also terrorism. At that time the idea was discarded but I wonder if this is just another attempt to try the same thing by a back door.
The argument is simple, if you raise objections then you will be labelled as condoning the abuse of children. What better way to silence objectors?
It is part of the government's responsibility, that we asked them to take, to ensure that we are protected.
I am protected, I haven't asked them anything.
If you don't feel safe just unplug your computer from the phone line.
Anything broadcast, accessed, downloaded, uploaded within the jurisdiction of our law is subject to that law.
There are regulations regarding the distribution of mail that the Post Office must comply with, and likewise the telecoms groups must not knowingly allow the illegal use of their services.
Telecoms groups can't listen in on your phone calls without a warrant.
Why should ISPs be any different?
Precicely.
If you all feel that it is an inaliable right to have freedom to access whatever you want, anonymously, then you have to accept that the protection of your rights guarantees the freedom of the paedophile down the road to continue their abuse of children half way across the world.
I feel it's my inalienable right to talk to people in Iraq and hear what is really happening rather than having to rely on "embedded" journalists working for the corporate media. Once the government has control of the internet that right will be taken away just as they are using anti terrorism laws against peaceful demonstrators.
Remove paediophilia from the internet and the paedophiles won't dissapear, they'll just go down the swing park instead.
Personally I don't see why I have to have access to anything that you would not find in the newsagent or the library.
You don't.
Boozeburglar
14-Aug-07, 10:16
I am protected, I haven't asked them anything.
Heart warming though it may be to hear that, the criminal justice system is there to protect society as a whole. If someone is breaking the law, we have given the government a mandate to deal with them. Regardless of your fantasy of an internet that is an open frontier for anyone to do with what they wish.
Where the net is being used to disseminate material that would be illegal to have on the shelves of your newsagent or library the government have a mandate from us to make decisions on our behalf in dealing with that.
If you don't feel safe just unplug your computer from the phone line.
These kind of patronising remarks always elevate the discussion, don’t they?
Perhaps you should follow your own advice, as you appear to have developed paranoid delusions that you are somehow the target of a Neo Con / Zionist conspiracy.
Speaking of which, when the day comes that the US government uses its technology to control the entire internet, how exactly would the UK government deal with it, were they to take your point of view? "The internet is not theirs to legislate, they didn't create it they don't control it, it has no borders," World According To Fred.
Telecoms groups can't listen in on your phone calls without a warrant.
WRONG
Where you are using adult services down the telephone line they certainly can, and have a duty to monitor such calls.
Precicely.
Are you going to actually answer the question?
I feel it's my inalienable right to talk to people in Iraq and hear what is really happening rather than having to rely on "embedded" journalists working for the corporate media. Once the government has control of the internet that right will be taken away just as they are using anti terrorism laws against peaceful demonstrators.
I have no problem sending and receiving emails from Iraq, exactly what evidence do you have that that right would be taken away?
Remove paediophilia from the internet and the paedophiles won't dissapear, they'll just go down the swing park instead.
Let’s have your evidence for this supposition?
Were it the case, are you suggesting we should care less because the child down the swing park is in another country? Shame on you for losing your global perspective, I thought you were a world citizen?
You don't.
Really? I doubt a single person who has used the internet for more than a brief moment would agree with that.
Fred, you seem intent on perennially burning down the straw man. How about some rational argument based on reality, not purely aimed at promoting your world view.
Crayola, you are probably right. I would suspect that if it was as easy to jump on those responsible as it first appears then the problem would not arise in the first place.A lot of webspace is let by web hosting companies. Some of this is sub-let, sub-sub-let and so on, so it can be hard to track down the real culprits.
I agree that laws should be appropriate and they should be applied carefully and fairly. Routine monitoring by government or its agencies is neither neither necessary nor appropriate.
WRONG
Where you are using adult services down the telephone line they certainly can, and have a duty to monitor such calls.
They have a duty not to under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The firm operating the adult services could monitor the calls but only if they tell the person using the service that they are doing it.
They know that trying to introduce a blanket right to snoop into everything would cause outrage so they start with something they know most people would not object to.
Once that has been accepted then the argument is used that if that is acceptable then something almost as objectionable should be monitored as well. This continues time after time until you suddenly realise that everything is being monitored and by then it is too late.
Once such laws are enacted it is very difficult to get them rescinded. Licensing hours were introduced as a "temporary measure" during the First World War. Temporary? Well, I suppose you could call 90 years "temporary", it depends on how patient you are.
One thing to bear in mind is that people are already losing their jobs when bosses discover that they have posted comments about them on the internet.
Would anybody wish to have any Government Department having the right to open all their personal letters or private correspondence which goes via the Royal Mail and having them arrive marked "Checked by the Censor!"?
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.