Are Internet access bans ethical? / General Chatting / Forums

Forums

4hv.org :: Forums :: General Chatting

« Previous topic | Next topic »

Are Internet access bans ethical?

1 2 next

Move Thread

LAN_403

Conundrum

Thu Mar 22 2012, 07:03PM

Registered Member #96 Joined: Thu Feb 09 2006, 05:37PM
Location: CI, Earth
Posts: 4061

Hi all.
I'm sure you've heard about the tragic events in France.

There was an article about the French Government considering introducing an internet ban for people who regularly access extremist websites.

It does raise the question of whether people who intentionally download material which "supports, promotes or glorifies terrorism" such as Al Qaida training manuals, etc should be banned for life from using the Internet?

Obviously there must be checks and balances, a conviction must have been given before such a ban can be imposed.

I would say that such a law would be an effective deterrent, but it would do nothing to address people who access such material through "sneakernet" , strong encryption such as Truecrypt or other indirect methods.

It seems that the law is decades behind technology, but we must be careful as a society not to cripple the Internet by imposing unnecessary restrictions.

Comments?

-A

Dago

Thu Mar 22 2012, 08:42PM

Registered Member #538 Joined: Sun Feb 18 2007, 08:33PM
Location: Finland
Posts: 181

I think all these attempts at censoring the internet have been a failure and looking from a technology viewpoint WILL continue to be failures unless INTERNATIONALLY governments will work together to create a more effective system of limiting the internet. I just think that with encryption, techniques like tor and other techniques of obscuring traffic will be prevail. If internet gets more restricted, the use of those technologies will just become more and more widespread. And the only real way to stop those is to change to a totally restricted system where pretty much everything else is forbidden except stuff that is explicitly allowed (like all other protocols/ports forbidden except port 80 and http to a heavily censored internet through only "approved" servers). Which would be pretty catastrophical to the usability and freedom of it.

These attempts to censor the internet have mainly come from politicians who are not technlogically adept to understand how unfeasible this kind of censorship is. Blocking some sites from ISPs DNS servers WILL stop most of the people from accessing those but it's very easy to circumvent if you have any understanding of technology. And the more widespread this kind of censorship becomes the more widespread the use of software and ways to circumvent this censorship will become.

I think trying to censor the internet is like Don Quijote fighting against the windmills and the only thing that is going to suffer is the general usability of it, most likely the "real" wrongdoers (terrorists, pedophiles etc.) will just circumvent this kind of censorship and continue like they used to.

Alex M

Thu Mar 22 2012, 09:50PM

Registered Member #3943 Joined: Sun Jun 12 2011, 05:24PM
Location: The Shire, UK
Posts: 552

I wonder if the reasons for Sky stopping end users from changing DNS servers in the router and redirecting all DNS requests to their own DNS servers (even if you have specified your own in TCP/IP settings) is to do with the recent order to block certain websites.

Also they lock you into using the router they supplied by allowing only that router to work on the line.

The router will also give out its own error pages if a website cannot be reached/times out which is a little concerning too.

Actually with the awful speeds I get during peak times I am unable to do much online at all, for example iplayer will fail with an "insignificant bandwidth" message and ping times will go through the roof.

Fibre optics in my area has just been pushed back until June/July too ) :

Ash Small

Fri Mar 23 2012, 12:15AM

Registered Member #3414 Joined: Sun Nov 14 2010, 05:05PM
Location: UK
Posts: 4245

As a lifelong devotee to 'freedom of information', and someone who believes that all censorship is 'the work of the devil', I'm opposed to any restrictions.

I also believe that these 'individuals' who commit these atrocities would probably be even more difficult to 'track down' if it wasn't for the trails they leave on the net, etc.

We had terrorists long before the internet was invented........................

Chris Russell

Fri Mar 23 2012, 07:19AM

... not Russel!
Registered Member #1 Joined: Thu Jan 26 2006, 12:18AM
Location: Tempe, Arizona
Posts: 1052

Fair warning: if this thread descends into politics, doomsaying, or conspiracy theories, it's going to get quickly padlocked, so please stay on topic.

Carbon_Rod

Fri Mar 23 2012, 07:35AM

Registered Member #65 Joined: Thu Feb 09 2006, 06:43AM
Location:
Posts: 1155

Actually, bathrooms and hamburgers kill more people every year than terrorists. Therefore, by the same logic the government should watch people on the toilet to make sure they don't injure themselves, and launch a war on cows to prevent hamburgers.

Censorship is about control of information, and thus a removal of choice to comply with societies social contract with civilians. Laws were never meant to be used as a method of punishing insane people with torture, and thus implicitly accepting their actions are that of humans rather than animals.

People who are ignorant of strategic information bias are metaphysically weak, less likely to understand their own subjugation, and more likely to live in fear. Therefore, in a war on terror there will be increased anxiety of terror, and thus more vulnerability to political manipulation on every side of an issue.

I often wonder if some politicians where bought up by parents who did not allow them any self defined boundaries, or respect for their own privacy. People need to stop playing games with other peoples lives, discuss matters in respectable discourse, and protect an individuals right to exist as unique.

This is one reason why we should choose to respect this forums owners wishes to remain politically neutral, and stop posting these types of subjects.

Conundrum

Fri Mar 23 2012, 08:31AM

Registered Member #96 Joined: Thu Feb 09 2006, 05:37PM
Location: CI, Earth
Posts: 4061

I agree with Ash, however there needs to be an effective deterrent to people who are looking up this sort of material.

Case in point, Wikipedia contains many references which in the wrong hands "could" lead to a disaster.
Such as the ingredients and proportions to make "energetic chemical compounds".
Under the same logic Wikipedia should log attempts to access these pages, and inform the authorities where applicable yet they choose not to because they wish to remain a neutral third party.

-A

relevant link:-

Ash Small

Fri Mar 23 2012, 09:15AM

Registered Member #3414 Joined: Sun Nov 14 2010, 05:05PM
Location: UK
Posts: 4245

Conundrum wrote ...

Case in point, Wikipedia contains many references which in the wrong hands "could" lead to a disaster.
Such as the ingredients and proportions to make "energetic chemical compounds".
Under the same logic Wikipedia should log attempts to access these pages, and inform the authorities where applicable yet they choose not to because they wish to remain a neutral third party.

-A

You don't need access to the internet to obtain this type of information, especially if you have links to terrorist organisations.

Surely you are not suggesting that the weapons, etc used by the Toulouse terrorist were bought from Ebay?

(I'd be very surprised if the authorities weren't tracking the internet activity that you suggest. He had been under surveillance for years, he'd attended training camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan. We know that governments are tracking all of our internet activity (see the recently locked thread on the NSA, for example-which incidentally, I didn't contribute to, as I expected it to be locked anyway)

If it does come down to a choice between censorship or 'freedom of information' while having to put up with 'being spied on by governments' then I suppose the second is the lesser of two evils.

Conundrum

Fri Mar 23 2012, 09:31AM

Registered Member #96 Joined: Thu Feb 09 2006, 05:37PM
Location: CI, Earth
Posts: 4061

Hmm..
It does raise an interesting point.
In principle, it is quite feasible to make all the components for a dangerous weapon using a 3-D printer such as the SLS system, along with ammunition etc.
This is by definition untraceable, and should the owner choose to the weapon can be made of undetectable ceramics, plastics etc reinforced with carbon fibre and metal filaments.

Does this mean that all 3D printers should be registered and their owners background checked/vetted?

-A

Ash Small

Fri Mar 23 2012, 09:46AM

Registered Member #3414 Joined: Sun Nov 14 2010, 05:05PM
Location: UK
Posts: 4245

You could say the same about everyone who has a small lathe in their shed.

Mine dates from the early 20th century, and was originally used in a munitions factory.

1 2 next

Moderator(s): Chris Russell, Noelle, Alex, Tesladownunder, Dave Marshall, Dave Billington, Bjørn, Steve Conner, Wolfram, Kizmo, Mads Barnkob