[clug] [OT] Broadband clangers

[Scott Ferguson]

On Fri Aug 13 19:11:27 MDT 2010 steve jenkin sjenkin at canb.auug.org.au
wrote:
> Sam Couter wrote on 13/08/10 2:22 PM:
> >/ Ben Nizette <bn at niasdigital.com <https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/linux>> wrote:
> /
> <snip>
>
> >>/ Well that's just the thing, a major part of RC relates to the
> />>/ incitement of violence or other indecent acts against others. Sure fewer
> />>/ than 99.99% of people who do see this stuff aren't going to act upon it
> />>/ but when one is too many, how do you make sure? Similar argument to gun
> />>/ laws..
> />/ 
> />/ Who says one is too many? I could ban cars based on the statement
> />/ that one death on the road is too many. Peanuts, going to the beach
> />/ or pool, bathrooms with hard surfaces, kitchens with sharp knives,
> />/ etc.
> /
> Sam/Ben,
>
> Thanks for both your PoV and agreeing to debate, not slang off at each
> other. One of the great things I enjoy about the people who are this list.
>
> For me, this post in particular suggests a question I've never heard in
> the 5+ years of this debate:
>
> 	Given that there is deep passion in the community over this
> 	issue, just *how* do we (The Voters):
> 	- define the question,
> 	- debate the issue and
> 	- decide the issue?
>
> The ALP/Conroy/FedGovt saying "we have a mandate for this" is flat-out
> wrong. [Proof is this thread.]
>
> It makes this a partisan issue where the only stance available for the
> Conservatives (in this political climate) is "No, you're wrong", which
> serves nobody.
>
> The EFA et al saying "It's a Bad Bad Thing" is similarly uninforming and
> doesn't take us towards a Solution, or even A Good Question...
>
> The current approach is demonstrably not taking us (our community) to
> consensus or clarity.
> Debates like ours don't create much 'light' and usually a lot of 'heat'.
> Even if CLUG did come to a new, insightful understanding of the problem
> and its solution, what then?? Talk amongst ourselves and decry the
> partisan politics and outrageous lobbying of vested interests?
>
> How do we get this Democracy we call Home to come up with a decent
> process that leads to not just an adequate Solution, but a Great one?
>
> A Solution that everyone can live with for 50 years...
>
> Not Rhetoric, but a real question...
> CLUG isn't your average group or mug-punters, nor is Canberra 'just
> anywhere'. We could make a difference, should we choose.
>
> [One young guy with a packet sniffer and a question changed the world of
> software with SAMBA... I'm not suggesting we *will* change this, but we
> might :-)]
>
> cheers
> steve
>
> -- 
> Steve Jenkin, Info Tech, Systems and Design Specialist.
> 0412 786 915 (+61 412 786 915)
> PO Box 48, Kippax ACT 2615, AUSTRALIA
>
> sjenkin at canb.auug.org.au <https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/linux> http://members.tip.net.au/~sjenkin <http://members.tip.net.au/%7Esjenkin>

Your questions raise further questions...

    * What is the government able to do?
    * What is the actual issue?
    * What should the government do?

(possibly in that order)

The government can make laws (create legislation). Those laws are
usually initiated by a perceived demand, be it community, government or
business.
The restrictions (note: I'm not a constitutional lawyer) on those laws
are that they must be:-

    * workable (can't make laws against bad weather, but can against
      sharp corners on furniture)
    * enforceable (difficult to pass laws against people smoking in
      their homes)
    * not over-ruled by higher laws (Federal over-rules State,
      International over-rules Federal etc)
    * transparent (ignorance is no excuse for breaking a law because
      it's published in Hansard, but is accessing a banned site on a
      secret list a justifiable offence?)

The issue (apparently) is that undesirable material can be accessed on
the internet. And that accessing that information may be harmful to society.
Whilst it can be argued that any harm is not universal - (ie Sam may not
be affected by pictures of naked people, but Joe Blow may claim that an
assault he commits was an uncontrollable result of viewing pictures of
naked people) laws are supposed to protect the most vulnerable. eg. you
may be a very good driver, able to safely determine the maximum safe
speed for given conditions... not everyone can, so laws are in place to
protect (restrict) people who are not very good drivers.

IMHO The government *should* pass no more laws than necessary... however
the reality is that there is considerable difference between what the
people want and what the people need. eg. My car takes off from the
lights all on it's own (and won't stop) (eg North America, Fiat and
Toyota - see P.J. O'Rourke "Parliament Of Whores").
The reality - if 6 million people demand a stupid thing the government
is obligated to do it (unless higher laws over-rule it) or lose power.
No tax on chocolate will win more elections than free universal dental care.
In a perfect world parents would supervise their children - but many
believe/demand that is the job of the government/education system.

Whilst we (on this list) may not agree on what should or shouldn't be
banned we should, perhaps, ask why something banned has to be blocked.
An analogy might be:-
It's illegal to sell cigarettes to minors. Should we block access to
tobacconists that sell cigarettes to children? Or just shut them down?
If we shut them down should it be a secret?
Like Linus in the food court we hold opinions and beliefs not shared by
everyone - not even the majority. If you think you do - ask yourself if
you believe in UFOs and alien probing, the UN controlling the world,
aboriginals living high on the hog, Jewish conspiracies, and everyone in
North America living wealthy lives in big cities.

My own belief is that if the police are not able to shutdown offensive
sites then give them (sic) the powers and resources they need to do so.
To those that are suspicious of where censorship may lead - I can't
think of an historical precedent to prove you wrong :-(
I'm reminded of when Nabakov's Lolita was banned. Not because it
portrayed sex with a minor in a positive light (quite the opposite, it's
a horror story) but because of a public perception that it did. At least
in that case people knew the book was banned.
The proposed internet filtering plan would/did lead to travel agents and
dentists being blocked, affecting their business and names - all in secret.

It seems ironic that many who clamour for the government to "do
something" are the same who demand the government stop interfering with
their lives.
Perhaps the real answer lies in convincing people to take more control
over their own lives instead of demanding the government do so. But that
would require education, without which informed choices cannot be made -
and that is an even bigger barrel of worms.

Morality is a tricky thing - whilst I am comfortable on a nude beach,
there are some in our society who require table legs to be covered
(nudge, nudge, wink, wink, snicker).
Whether it takes all types to make the world go round, or not - we
certainly have "all types".

A solution we can all live with for 50 years? How about constant
vigilance? We can't make the world a better place but we do have to work
to stop it becoming worse.
Personally I think most people do the right thing most of the time - and
peers are very influential. If "we" do nothing the "rest" will just
follow the second law of Thermodynamics ;-p

Cheers