Jan Eichstaedt <jan.eichsta...@iopn.org> writes:

> Hello List:
> Please let me suggest to tone down and focus on the task at hand, i.e.
> find an answer to The Question and decide whether or not to put it in
> the FAQ. Thinking in terms of war is usually worsening things. Also
> simplifying in terms of good and bad seem to distract. I tried to
> introduce humane -- inhumane, instead, because one has a definition in
> the human rights as adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly
> resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948.

Well than it would be more like a statement companies have, some sort of
legal agreement, without any enforcement.

Well the faq place is cheap and you can add something to it. It would
then just not mean much, more like marketing.

As example sharing child porn would as example not fall under that
declaration, sharing pictures of crimes is more like a state level law,
like in northern countries they have transparent processes without any
restrictions to media about the crime.

So you would not only have the problem that it would be very problematic
to implement technicaly you would virtualy block nothing. I mean there
is not much space to violate human rights over a
filesharing/communication network.

I just see it as delecate problematic proposel especialy if we stay
always completly abstract on every single detail.

I mean mentioning the Resolution at least clarifies one point a bit so
thanks for that.

I just see it problematic to have a very vague abstract gummy statement,
cause such stuff can be missused by some groups very easily.

But thats just my thoughts :)

Help-gnunet mailing list

Reply via email to