It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Call to regulate the net rejected

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 05:58 PM
link   
BBC News


The internet should not be used as a scapegoat for society's ills, said Vint Cerf, Google's net evangelist and a founding father of the network.



Google does not want to take on the role of censor, said Mr Cerf


(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 06:00 PM
link   
I agree with Mr. Cerf to reject the idea that the internet should be regulated. I also found it interesting that he said that society was using the internet as a scapegoat..
I believe that harmful things such as how to make a bomb or something should be taken off the internet, but to regulate it, or to stop people from going to certain sites is out of the question imo.



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 07:46 AM
link   
The Internet is self-sustaining, meaning it does not rely on one source to stay online. While it would be possible for Search Engines to censor via search term results, it is not always possible to remove an actual website from the web. ISP's would have to cooperate globally to ban sites from their users. This would require a great deal more resources, and isn't going to happen.

The Internet has thrust us into a world where you have access to all knowledge placed there, good or bad. It's not like we can turn back the clock and take away the internet, which would be the only solution.



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by bluewagon
I agree with Mr. Cerf to reject the idea that the internet should be regulated. I also found it interesting that he said that society was using the internet as a scapegoat..
I believe that harmful things such as how to make a bomb or something should be taken off the internet, but to regulate it, or to stop people from going to certain sites is out of the question imo.


Last I checked, taking "harmful" material off the internet IS regulation. The internet is an archive of information, the good and the bad can only be defined by the person perspective when they see the material. For instance, if a kid (or an adult for that mater) sees a site on how to make a bomb, it is their choice of what to do with the material. The site its self will most likely not be telling someone WHY they should bomb WHAT the person has in mind, instead there are other implications within society its self that make the person decide what to do with the information.

In other words, Cerf is right when he says society uses the internet as a scapegoat for our problems. The reasons why people do the things they do can only be found in the social forces that act around them.



Good post.



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by bluewagon
I believe that harmful things such as how to make a bomb or something should be taken off the internet, but to regulate it, or to stop people from going to certain sites is out of the question imo.


Not at all well thought out when you consider that it goes both ways.

For example:

By noting a piece on How to 'blow stuff up' on Digg, a citizen was able to recognize a home-made device left in a public building and alert authorities.

-or-

When the perp ordered a certain combination of chemicals, an alert chemist who had glimpsed the formula on a 'worst of the Web' site, was able to thwart the plan.


It's sort of a when you ban home-made pyrotechnics, only criminals will have them situation.



new topics

top topics
 
1

log in

join