Agreed and it's good that you filter child abuse out i hope that you continue you code of conduct of "Don't be evil"
Also agreed, Child abuse sites should not be allowed, anything other than that is unnecessary and is only restricting the free information scope that should be allowed to general public.A better option would be to inform users about the dangers of the internet and apply local filtering for the younger users. The general scope of the population should not have to be affected by the minority that decides to use the internet in an unlawful way.
Just a thought. Isn't removing CP from the internet a bit like destroing an evidence of a crime?
It is important to childproof your internet at home. ISPs can block websites unsuited for children. Parents should take a proactive stance too on what their children see online.
The burden of censoring material from our children should be enforced by the Parents, not the government.If the government cannot trust parents to do this, then they cannot trust their voters and what voter wants a government in power that won't trust them?As for adults using the internet for questionable material, I think it's fairly straight forward that any filter cannot have an accurate bearing on what is allowable and what is not.As an example: a lawyer putting together a case may need to access reports about abuse, a computer security engineer may need to look up hacking techniques for the purpose of prevention.Censorship of the internet is a ridiculous notion and goes against all kinds of Australian freedom principles.
Post a Comment