The government does it again
Tue, 25 Sept 2007, 01:49 pmNa26 posts in thread
The government does it again
Tue, 25 Sept 2007, 01:49 pmThe government is hoping to curtail our freedom of speech (and reading) even further, by not allowing us to access all of the internet. Apparently.
The following was posted on Mashable.com:
Several privacy advocates are in an uproar in response to a bill introduced by Australia’s Parliament, which would grant the country’s federal police the power to control which sites can be accessed by users of the Internet. Titled the Communications Legislation Amendment (Crime or Terrorism Related Internet Content) Bill 2007, the federal police would have the power to add onto (or remove from) the blacklist, naming sites that are currently banned from Australia , as determined by the Australian Communications and Media Authority.
This extends the rights of the ACMA onto the federal police, which appears to some as a way of limiting the rights of freedom of speech. The legislation is being promoted as a way to target phishing and terrorist sites, as well as those that publish information on other criminal activity. However, we’ve all been subjected to politicians taking action under the guise of protecting us from terrorism, and the result is several privacy groups that are wary of this bill being passed. Next thing we know, Australia will be blocking YouTube.
Read more about it here.
I had this discussion in
Thu, 27 Sept 2007, 08:24 pmI had this discussion in class about editing Wikipedia when the CIA was also caught doing it.
I do not see why it is such an issue that someone was editing data- as far as I'm aware anyone can do it! Infact I know people who have tried to put things on Wikipedia, changed things etc.
That kind of site CAN be edited by anyone- so why the outrage when someone does?
On that line as far as I'm aware the entire net can be edited. We all add data to this site.
If the government posted and then edited content on here would we be shocked?
Sure they were probably editing things that especially related to themselves and was in bad taste or whatever.
But think- on Wikipedia, WHO posted the original details, HOW accurate were the original details...was the Government body that edited technically making things right.
Aren't there departments within the police that can close down websites anyway?
Or is that something that is just overblown in police TV dramas...
See what I mean about everybody being able to edit.
Restricted free speech is an appropriate term for today I feel.
____________________________________________________________
Currently working on:
A nice break before jumping into my next project.
- ···
- ···