I'm sorry that my language was not as precise as some would like. I really did not intend to upset so many people.
The group who received computers from Free Geek has people from age 4 to age 106 who use the computers. The computer area is not closely monitored. Most people use the computers respectfully however someone has been using their computers to go to porn sites and then leaving the site and the pictures there for the next user of the computer. This is very disturbing if you are 4 years old (or any age) and you are not expecting this and do not want to see it. If they knew for sure who is doing this, it might be possible to ban him?her from the community center. Thank you for the suggestions. I'll try to post again to let you know how things go. Peace DFhubbard > Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 17:55:12 -0700 > From: Matt McKenzie <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [PLUG] XXX? > To: "General Linux/UNIX discussion and help, civil and on-topic" > <[email protected]> > Message-ID: > <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 5:25 PM, Erik Lane <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 5:20 PM, Michael Rasmussen <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 05:09:51PM -0700, Roderick A. Anderson wrote: >> >> [email protected] wrote: >> >> > I'm on the Free Geek Grant group. One group wants to be able to >> stop >> the >> >> > access to porn on their grant computers. Any suggestions? >> >> >> >> I understood your request but it took several readings. >> > >> > WT_? >> > >> > "One group wants to be able to stop the access to porn on their grant >> computers." >> > >> > That is a simple declarative sentence. >> > One only needs to retain four phrases in their short term memory to >> grok >> it. >> > >> > OK, not as simple as Hemingway. Simplier than Stephanson, Dick, >> Carroll >> or LeGuin. >> > >> > May the linguists among us flame me if I'm wrong. >> >> It is an ambiguous sentence. It could be read to mean blocking access >> to porn that is *already* on those computers, either from people on >> the computer, or from the outside world, as well as what he likely >> meant, blocking people using those computers from accessing porn sites >> out there on the internet. > > > My $0.02 here. > > The confusion, from my perspective at least, was this- > Is the OP asking for help setting up filtering on computers that they or > their group owns, that they received from Free Geek, > or are they asking about setting up filters on ALL computers given out by > Free Geek, regardless of whether the recipient wants such filters in > place? > > > This is where the individual rights issue comes up, whether Free Geek has > the right to set up filters on all the computers it gives out. > > This is (or at least should be) separate from the moral issue of XXX on > the > internet, but the issue of the rights of the donor (Free Geek) and the > rights of the recipient of the donated computers, to control what kinds of > materials can be accessed on said computers, once the donor takes the > computers to their private home. > > This is, and should be, separate from the right of, say, an employer to > control access to certain materials on the employer's computers at the > employer's place of business, using the employer's internet connection. > This type of TOS restriction is common in most workplaces. (Or also > employee's computers while accessing the employer's internet connection, > etc) > > The OP mentioned being on the Free Geek Grant Group, and since I am not > involved with Free Geek I don't know what kind of control they exercise > over > the computers being given out to individuals and groups, so thus the > confusion. > > In other words, if this is about computers that an individual or group > owns, > received from Free Geek but no longer under their control, then they > should > be able to setup any kind of filtering they want for their private use. > However if this is about controlling the access to any kind of material on > all Free Geek computers after they leave Free Geek, and go into other > people's private homes, that then crosses the line into censorship by one > group over another, IMHO. The individual (or group) owner of the computer > should decide for themselves if they want to filter content, not someone > else. > > Is that clear as mud now? ;) > > > ---------- > Matt M. > LinuxKnight > True reconciliation is never cheap, for it is based on forgiveness, which is costly. Forgiveness in turn depends on repentance, which has to be based on an acknowledgment of what was done wrong, and therefore on disclosure of the truth. You cannot forgive what you do not know. Archbishop Tutu _______________________________________________ PLUG mailing list [email protected] http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
