It's worse than that - the mechanism that is required to enforce the law
makes anonymous surfing illegal. Say goodbye to Tor, for example, since the
ISP will be unable to enforce the law under it. The law was proposed by
politicians who don't accept democacy and don't understand the Internet - a
dangerous combination, even if they were democratically elected.
I strongly recommend ISOC-IL, IGLU, Hamakor and other intersted parties make
strong staements to the public as to the inappropriateness of this law in
what (still) purports to be a democratic country.
Rony
_____
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Ori Idan
Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2007 8:33 PM
To: Yonah Russ
Cc: Shachar Shemesh; Peter; IGLU
Subject: Re: the great jerusalem firewall
The problem is not porn or not.
The problem is letting other people decide what you can see and what you
can't see.
The government should not decide for me what I can see or not.
--
Ori Idan
On 3/3/07, Yonah Russ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 3/3/07, Shachar Shemesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yonah Russ wrote:
> I don't think so at all- I just think that the laws in a democracy are
> usually reasonably in line with the majority of the constituents.
While "Majority rules" is a very important basis of democracy, it is
very far from being the only one. Two others that come to mind are
"Minority rights and legitimacy" (i.e. - it's ok to be a minority, you
should not be harassed merely for not being part of the majority) and
"Pluralism of thought". Without these later two, no country is a
democracy. Add to this the generally good idea of "avoid doing by law
what can be achieved using self regulation", and you have all the
markings of a bad law.
This law isn't stopping anyone who already legally has the right to look at
porn from looking at porn. It just requires them to prove that they have the
right. I don't see requiring to identify yourself before watching porn as
any different from requiring a license for driving.
This isn't about censoring the internet. This is about censoring the
internet from children. I don't know any child that can't live without a
slightly smaller internet.
> The laws are made by people chosen to make laws. The citizens in this
> country chose those people to make those decisions.
Which makes the parliament directly responsible for the citizens to make
reasonable laws. What's the point?
> I don't think almost any government is perfect- just hopefully a
> lesser evil.
But, in this case, an evil non the less.
> -Yonah
Let me flip the question for you. Please explain why is this proposed
law better than, say, the ISPs offering a "Kosher Internet" service at a
modest price to those parents interested in such a service?
As I've said in other parts of this thread I think this law has a major
advantage in that it will block access from anywhere- People can attempt to
protect their home networks only to fail at the local internet cafe or
though the neightbor's wireless connection, or on a cellphone. This law
ensures (hopefully) that every access to adult content will be made by
adults. If a parent really want's they're kids looking at porn sites,
they'll give them their password.
-Yonah
Shachar
--
Shachar Shemesh
Lingnu Open Source Consulting ltd.
Have you backed up today's work? http://www.lingnu.com/backup.html
