[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