Comments on: Internet Filters?

By: sasha

sasha — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 19:09:52 +0000

Sorry didn’t see this post.

I would agree with Farid. I really think it’s unnecessary and leads to more harm then good.

By: Farid Wardan

Farid Wardan — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 12:02:52 +0000

The proposed filter would be a lot less restrictive then the ones in use by China for example, so proxies won’t be blocked from what I’ve read.

The stated goal is good, righteous even, but the proposed means aren’t going to achieve the stated goals, they might even make it easier to find child pornography by people using the blacklist as a roadmap!

I have no problem with filters in themselves, but making them compulsory and at an ISP level is the danger. If anyone wishes to filter out any content on the Internet, the government already makes provision for doing so.

By: Steven

Steven — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 07:33:44 +0000

Wouldn’t all four points above apply just as much to end-user Internet filters?

At least if it was done at the ISP’s it would presumably be harder to get around. (Assuming they block overseas proxy’s and things…)

By: Farid Wardan

Farid Wardan — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 04:11:24 +0000

End-user Internet filters are the most configurable and robust, you previously covered the NetAlert project which I believe to be a great initiative. Definitely in agreement over the need to protect people from evil content, I just believe this initiative is a dangerous and irrelevant one when it comes to doing that. Accountability and monitoring are far more effective than any filter when it comes to the Internet.

By: Jason Harris

Jason Harris — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 01:33:10 +0000

I like the idea of government sponsored optional filtering, but I’m seriously concerned with the scheme as you describe it. How long do you think it would be before Christian “hate” sites would be shut down under the scheme?

As always, there’s a tension between protecting free speech (which is *crucial*) and protecting citizens from legitimately evil content.