[LINK] Web filter debate descends into slanging match at Kickstart Forum 2009
Lea de Groot
lealink at viking.org.au
Wed Feb 25 14:08:51 AEDT 2009
On 25/02/2009, at 8:09 AM, Bernard Robertson-Dunn wrote:
> Web filter debate descends into slanging match at Kickstart Forum 2009
> By Chloe Lake, Technology Editor
> NEWS.com.au
> February 24, 2009 03:45pm
> http://www.news.com.au/technology/story/0,28348,25100456-5014239,00.html
Oh, so helpful! So professional! :(
Slightly broader topic... perhaps I haven't read the correct articles,
but I have some questions about the filter that I haven't figured out.
Is it supposed to stop anyone looking at child pornography, or is it
supposed to stop children looking at general porn etc etc?
Because it seems to me that these are two completely different aims
and they can't claim to be doing both?
If the aim is to stop cp (and I *think* this is the most pushed
agenda) then surely we would do better to just have those sites taken
down, rather than making a neat list of them?
If the aim is to 'protect the children' - well, thats completely
different and seems an odd way to approach it. If you want to protect
them, you filter what children see, not the entire nation.
I read the transcript of lateline from last night:
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2500416.htm
and the 'generic parent' they pulled out seemed concerned about
children viewing illegal stuff (she mentions 'non-consensual'). Surely
the better way to protect these children is to take this stuff off the
net? Making a neat list seems foolish if you only use the list to know
when to metaphorically shut your eyes, and don't then remove the
problem?
I am quite confused about this.
Lea
--
Lea de Groot
Brisbane, .au
More information about the Link
mailing list