"How do you respond to the problem...?"
Why, by State Control of the Right to Freedom of Expression of course!
And by bringing up the bogeymen of paedophiles and terrorists it just makes it so much easier because we're Thinking of the Children!
Nicolas Sarkozy plans to use France's presidency of the G8 this year to promote international cooperation on greater regulation of the internet, according to reports. "How do you respond to the problem of terrorism, of paedophilia, to subjects such as the right to be forgotten?" an unnamed source in Sarkozy's entourage was …
"How do you respond to the problem of terrorism, of paedophilia, to subjects such as the right to be forgotten?"
Just asking... but what happens when the terrorists and paedophiles ask for their right to be forgotten? Will Sarky's brain throw a "does not compute" wobbly and explode? Now THAT would probably be a good result!
thank you for clarifying that, the problem that many people seem to agree on is: the internet is immoral because it allow everybody to do what they want to do.
but here is a question for you, what is "moral" and why should the internet be regulated by *YOUR* moral standard? (assuming you have any morals). Even if you try to added some "common moral" as the standard, then the question is who's morals are we talking about, western christens? perhaps the church? So where does this level the none christens?
Even if you do (somehow) manage to agree on what is immoral, what right do you have to censor the access to that resource from people who do _NOT_ find it immoral? And the many many more who do not give a damn about it!.
let us take porn as an example, many agree that it is immoral. But isn't it one of the most access resource on the internet? What does that tell you about what people believe to be "immoral"?
What about things that you find to be immoral while the next 10 guys find it offensive and the next 100 guys don't give a damn about it and the next 1000 guys like it? (note the 1000 guys who like it might still find it immoral, example porn).
if you wish to censor the internet then by all means go ahead (I am not French), but please do what is _morally_ right and be _honest_ about it.
Beware of anyone doing anything using words like 'morality' or 'faith' to do anything. If something is really wrong you don't need to use the word morality as people just know it is wrong instinctively, no need for moral justifications.
The only time these word get used as justifications is when someone is imposing their morality or faith on others. Which is morally wrong, ....... right?
Also love politicians. A system that was designed to be invulnerable to any kind disruption or regulation. We need to regulate that.
And finally as I commented on another story here. Always love how people happily hand over controls to governments with the promise that it will help them be protected from terrorism and pedo's. Then get surprised when the government misuse those controls on something that is not terrorism or child protection related.
I agree, and furthermore..
Moral Imperative != Legal Imperative - by what right are they going to try and regulate something that is global by its very nature?
The phrase "This is not to constrain the freedom of the Internet", is a lot like saying
"I only want to make you a little bit pregnant."
Once the structure is in place, it just needs someone to come along to abuse it.
Why are politicians such control freaks? Of course this particular idiot has a complex cultural background so it is hard to determine which way he will head.
The only good news is that the EU has such a mass that it takes almost the length of a presidency to gather momentum.
Could the 'special relationship talks of with France be centred around the fact they are both beholden to Hollywood and the elimination of piracy?
There are so many more pressing matters than diddling with the InterNet, like financial collapse.
"Why are politicians such control freaks?"
because they think it's their job. They've forgotten that they who govern best govern least.
Someone will always ask "If they're not coming down hard on _someone_ what are they being paid for?"
I do believe that the populace gets what they vote for. If sheeple didn't react to sensationalist tripe all the time, the Politicians would have to work for a living.
"The only good news is that the EU has such a mass that it takes almost the length of a presidency to gather momentum."
I would not rely on EU sluggishness. Remember the history of the passing of the EU Data Retention Directive (M. Blair's little passing gift to the rest of Europe).
I wonder do politicians who talk about morals sound equally dumb in *all* parts of Europe? I could sort of imagine one in say Germany *possibly* pulling it off but really, France, Italy or Great Britain?
I used to attend international conventions and conferences where sometimes contentious subjects might be discussed. The French were quite good at sitting through long meetings and suddenly realising what had been said. They would realise how their security forces would not like the way that it would impact on their 'secret activities'. Some present at the meetings could not avoid the temptation to wind them up! I can see this storm as being yet another example of using one undoubtedly unsavoury set of subjects to create yet another control freak centric mess. One that other countries will have to resolve.
Anonymous for reasons detectable from the above text.
All the politicians and others who are so keen to control the Internet can start by eliminating the spam that constitutes 80% of email traffic. I don't suppose anyone will object to that.
It's also a fairly restricted problem domain, so it will be a useful opportunity for them to showcase the massive technical knowlege they bring to the task.
"I can't wait to see the day political decisions are made by the actual people who lives in the country in real-time via the net"
Yes, that sounds like a wonderful idea. Perhaps an evaluation of the different options could be provided first by a virtual Simon Cowell, Louis Walsh and Piers Morgan. Ant and Dec could run podcasts analysing the results.
It would certainly make for some entertaining new laws. I can see it now -
Mandatory death sentences for anyone attempting to recycle cats, but allowances made for shooting your ex-girlfriend.
A new monarch decided every three months from a selection of has-been celebrities on the basis of which one can eat the most kangaroo testicles.
Gillian McKeith appointed head of the NHS.
A new national anthem to be written and performed by Jedwood.
I can't wait.
> to see how we can regulate the virtual city **while still regarding the internet as an opportunity**
an opportunity for whom and for what ?
Commerce is already doing fine, no need to touch that
anyway, I hope morality is just a smokescreen.
"The bombs dropped on Hiroshima killed 200,000 people, so you can stuff your morality" - crass
I wonder how the frogs became so matey with "Barak room lawyer" and his entourage all of a sudden. That whirring sound must be Charles de Gaulle rotating at speed in his tomb. If they continue in the same vein they will not be "best friends" for long as they will discover that Yanks are are even more acquisitive they they are and have the muscle and will to use it and burning a few sheep on the main roads will have no effect on them.
And of course regulation never, ever constrains anything.
Pull the other one, it's got bells on.
What they're after is a way to stifle criticism and exposure. Sarkozy, like his predecessors, is as corrupt as the day is long. Exposure of the details of his peccadilloes to the world is the last thing he wants & if that means he has to straightjacket the rest of the world, well, so be it.
'In a speech at the Vatican in October, Sarkozy declared: "Regulating the internet to correct the excesses and abuses that arise from the total absence of rules is a moral imperative!"'
I imagine someone may have made that speech in the Vatican before, only instead of "internet" they said "printing press."
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019