Internet policing.

[old.Tohtori]

So let's take it to another thread:

Im not going to derail this thread again, but the internet censorship wont do shit. The loonies will just post their videos right before they do whatever they are about to do. Its a weak excuse to monitor the only source of information that is completely independent.

IF a police officer can see someone acting "dangerous" or posting gun shooting videos etc, it MIGHT, note, MIGHT help stop atleast ONE of these shootings.

What's the harm?

If you've got something to hide, sure, then you should probably go against it.

It's not like they're checking everyones computer for every string of conversation.

 

[leviathane]

Bit of minority report territory though.

 

[Gorbachioo]

There is no reason assume that the internet monitoring will ever prevent anything for the simple reason that i just stated. Therefore if there is nothing be gained from it i dont want the government to be censoring things in the internet with the peoples permission. We have freedom of speech so we could expose our governments when they do something wrong. I think its evident that we can not always trust the main stream media to do that (for example, the whole immigration issue in Finland)

 

[crispy]

Wasnt tohtoris post about watching the net, and not censoring it?

 

[old.Tohtori]

Wasnt tohtoris post about watching the net, and not censoring it?

Quite.

I'm not saying cencoring would be needed, 'm saying that by monitoring the internet, even if just ONE life is saved, it's good.

 

[Ormorof]

monitor the net all they like tbh, though alot of the time they respond to peoples complaints/issues with sites (that breach copyrights, could be seen as a threat to public safety etc)

but err apart from that im of the view that internet should be like any other utility and should be pumped into houses that pay and should be used as the people see fit (if you light cigars with a gas cooker no one knows or cares but they want to monitor my internet usage for advertising purposes? i think not baby puppy )

 

[Gorbachioo]

Quite.

I'm not saying cencoring would be needed, 'm saying that by monitoring the internet, even if just ONE life is saved, it's good.

I wasnt sure what exactly you meant but the talk about internet monitoring includes censorship (atleast in Finland). The theory goes that if they remove the videos in time then they wont do it. The other excuse here is child porn which they obviously want to censor.

Anyway, im still going to say no. Sometimes governments dont do whats best for the people and i'll feel alot better if the people can discuss that (and then act on it) without the police monitoring it. Also, i think that temptation to censor something is alot bigger if you have the means to do it and a good target. Monitoring the web gives the government just that.

 

[Amanita]

The other excuse here is child porn which they obviously want to censor.

Damn right of them too. Its illegal for a reason.

If evidence of an impending shooting found on the internet leads to the prevention of the actual event, how can it be wrong?

Edit: And I am talking about monitoring NOT censorship. You seem to confuse the two Gorb.

 

[fl3a]

if you start going by 'if by doing [this] then ONE life might be saved' you can get into ridiculous territory

if by not writing on paper you MIGHT save the life of ONE hippie who chains himself to trees you can stop writing on paper.
if by not driving a car you MIGHT save enough gas to save the life of ONE drilling platform worker who doesnt have to stay overtime you can stop driving cars.
if by having everything you do monitored ONE life MIGHT be saved sure they can monitor me all they want.

 

[Gorbachioo]

Damn right of them too. Its illegal for a reason.

If evidence of an impending shooting found on the internet leads to the prevention of the actual event, how can it be wrong?

Edit: And I am talking about monitoring NOT censorship. You seem to confuse the two Gorb.

But when you give them the power to censor things then that means they can also censor things should not be censored. We should not give up our only independent source of information just so that perverts cant jerk off at home. Getting rid off child porn does not prevent pedophilia.

As for the shooting thing: The whole thing is flawed. If the wierdos know that someone is watching then they'll just post their videos right before they do it. It doesnt work so its not worth sacrificing anything. Something like this should only be implemented if something real and important can be achieved with it.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Today, police capture someone uploading a picture about a kid, shot through a "sniper scope".

 

[fettoken]

By Internet police, i thought you meant someone that complained when someone didn't put a compelling argument behind their flame or such. But, there are already some self proclaimed people who does that, so never mind.