[philosophy of censorship] Re: Imminent Death of Usenet Predicted

[jf_avon@citenet.net (Jean-Francois Avon (JFA Technologies, QC, Canada))]

Jordan wrote to me today:


>Hey, I tried to explain this, but you missed it:

     Apologies, I did miss part of your point.

>I *know* that a *huge* percentage
>of the population in this country does (sorry for being USA-centric,
>but we have [at least for now] the largest net population, so you
>can see how this will go ...).  

     Should the absolute number of peoples 'wishing' something relevant?

>Therefore, I'd like to see a way
>for the default be that kids (dare I say everyone!) don't *automatically
>stumble upon* it in the open network.

     I find the sentence a bit strong, here.

>I think that if the
>majority of the people in a community don't want the default behavior
>to be "click here for tits!" 

     They can subscribe to a net provider that restricts access to such newsgroups.
If this restriction is circumvented by the kid, don't you think that the said 
kid will find ways to get whatever he/she wants no matter the laws?

     They also can choose the ultimate solution: not to be on the net.

>then it's up to us, as technologists,
>to provide easy-to-use mechanisms for those who do want to see them
>to not infringe on those who don't.

     *THAT* is the thing I have most problems to.  This sentence is 
boobie-trapped.  Let's me state, for the book (or maybe hard drive),
that I do not subscribe to this view of Man.  I believe that 
selfishness is a virtue and that altruism is at best a psychological
problem.  Why is it that us, technologists, thoses who know and can, 
have a duty to thoses who cannot?  This does not contradict good 
commercial practices.  If there is a *demand* then, there is a market.
Any producers does follow the demand very closely or he gets out of 
business.

     But govt intervention, rules, standards, etc are *all* enforced 
at the point of a gun (even if deeply hidden under a pile of red tape).
This view implies that *because* you can produce, you have a duty to the
one who cannot.  It means that if you can produce, your duty is to become
a cattle for the benefit of others.  If you cannot produce, you have every
rights.

     In today's political climate, the whiners, complainers and decryier
are god.

     When is it that thoses who get sucked by the collectivists leeches
will say : Enough!  I am fed up to owe any drifter the best of my life!


> <...> porno <...>  you can rent it <...>  But most people
>don't want it by default to be on channel 7.  
>Last time: I *personally*
>am not one of them, but it's important to see what the majority
>thinks on this issue.

     I agree with you on this one: wouldn't it be wonderfull to have porno
movies on channel 7 ...   sigh...  :->


     Actually, just as I mentionned, every entities that seeked to control
man used guilt to do so.  And by the nature of guilt, sex and human mind,
sex is *the* best thing to induce guilt.

     Since a large part of the population *are* controlled through the sex-guilt 
association, it is 
extremely handy to create the pseudo-justification the govt need
for their actions.

     But as I said previously, the biggest threath to the govt is that peoples
can now find each other and talk together.  Previously, we had the means to
talk but no means of finding each others.  The Internet provides this.



>Yes, if your communications
>are important to you or you are a potential target of investigation,
>you should know it's not private.  But it's not like any significant
>number of phone calls are tapped, by the government or otherwise.
>And it's not likely to happen, either, because NONE CARES WHAT YOU
>SAY TO YOUR FRIEND ON THE PHONE.

     Unless you discuss about how freedom of speech should go unbreached...


>	>And don't forget: if you have privacy, you don't need anonymity.
>	>Swiss banks provide the ultimate example.


>You can get a numbered account at a Swiss bank by showing up at
>the branch, introducing yourself to the branch manager, proving to
>him who you are, and signing some papers.  They will keep your name
>out of any transactions you make, but they *know you* ... this is
>not anonymity; this is merely privacy.

No, for all it matters, it is anonymity.  Because the swiss banks does
not publish the name of accounts holders.  The recent case of German 
police raiding homes of german citizens working in Lischtenstein(?)
banks shows that, far all that matters, theses banks accounts are 
anonymous, i.e. there is no way for the german govt to know the name
of the accounts holders.   Their only way to gain knowledge is through
the use or threath of physical violence.


>Don't forget: the fact that "porno on the net" (for instance) is
>an issue *at all* is a *failure* of technology.

     Sorry for my stupidity, but I *completely* fail to understand.
Would you please explain what are your basis for stating so?


>  It would be a
>non-issue if USENET wasn't essentially a technology vacuum.

     I find this a bit strong, but since I did not understand the previous
statement, I will refrain from commenting.


Regards to all CPunkers

JFA
Existence exists, Reality Is.