Internet Censorship; Some cold facts.

[bulldogg]

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/filtering/china/

One of the many plainly absurd sites blocked by the PRC during the study...

Title: Ice Rink Management Asia & Ice Rink Resources
Site: www.irma.com.hk (and subdirectories) Blocking quotient: Inaccessible significantly more often than not
Blocked on: Sep 30 (Shanghai), Sep 30 (Jiangsu), Sep 30 (Guangdong), Oct 12 (Shanghai), Oct 12 (Guangdong), Oct 12 (Yantian), Oct 12 (Beijing)
Yahoo: Business and Economy > Business to Business > Construction > Special Construction > Sports Facilities > Rinks
Description: ice rink builder, ice rink equipment supply, ice skating
Inbound Link Count: 30 linking pages

First smooth ice, THEN democracy. :lol:

Do you think censorship or surveilance is more harmful to a democratic society? I would argue that censorship is more harmful to a democracy but that surveilance feels more like oppressive government than withholding information does.

 

[Ted]

I reckon it is a chicken-egg conversation; which one was first? The more censorship you have, the more it needs to be enforced. To do this you need surveillance.
But it also starts with surveillance and then slowly built into cencorship.

I, personally, choose for cencorship. Once you have this, the entire demasque of democracy must have taken place. Surveillance is still reverseable along the way.

 

[phoenix80]

censorship is against freedom and democracy!

surveillance has always existed in the societies!

 

[KC72]

Check what the FBI are doing]

 

[Ted]

Well KC72, I see some troubles arising for my next trip to the US. I've made quite some pranks on the subjects etc. I'm curious to find out wether my indefinate visum and social security# will get me through with no troubles....

 

[bulldogg]

From poll results so far I see most people would seem to agree with democracy being just fine in a police state as surveilance is accepted over censorship.

 

[LeEnfield]

There must and always be some form of censorship around, can you allow a person to put on to the Internet some thing that would compromise state security, or endanger troops life's. Now this can be done out of spite and some times out of malice, if some one picks up a bit of information and puts it on the web that leads to the death of people should they be held responsible and if it has been spotted by the powers to be then should they take action to save lives, just who is right and who is wrong.

 

[Ted]

From poll results so far I see most people would seem to agree with democracy being just fine in a police state as surveilance is accepted over censorship.

I don't agree with you on this one, since democracy and a police state don't mix. And it is the duty to protect the innocent against others and part of this results in surveillance. But the drop in street muggings and the relation to increase video surveillance is, to my opinion, a good thing. It is, however, dangerous when you overdo the surveillance bit. And the demarcation of that fine line is where problems arise.

 

[Italian Guy]

I went for censorship as more harmful.
Surveillance is ok, what does it violate, other than privacy?

P.S. You know what? I believe "Surveilance" is American spelling, "Surveillance" British.

 

[bulldogg]

Bastard. :lol: I work with a bunch of brits and aussies and now my bloody language, both spelling and vocabulary is a complete bastardisation of both and follows no logic. I called my tennis shoes trainers the other day. :roll:

Privacy is a major issue for most free people. I would point to the former Soviet Union of an example of surveillance gone awry and what happens when government's powers go unchecked and I would proffer that the American Patriot Act is just such a step with its increased police powers in particular giving the FBI carte blanche to spy on anyone without offering any evidence and with no oversight.