I agree, and that's exactly why I was he first one to menton the possible
LINUX implicatons. But as I already wrote, only 2 other people referred to
that aspect of the problem. All the other posts were about censorship, porn
etc - and those subjects, as interesting as they may be, ARE off
Quoting Shachar Shemesh, from the post of Fri, 02 Mar:
The real reason you are confused, however, is because the question is
not whether kids should have access to pornography. The real question
is whether all internet users in Israel be forced to identify
themselves via biometrics in a
On 04/03/07, Shlomo Solomon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This completely off-topic thread has gone on far too long. Aside from two or
three posts about possible LINUX issues, I fail to see why we are having this
completely irrelevant discussion about porn, censorship, religion and who
knows what
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
The law was passed by 25 members of parliament, most of which come from
religious factions. These people do not represent the majority of the
people.
Second, while I do not agree with the way they decide speed limits (and
I do enforce them every day), I see why a commission of experts can
decide
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007, Peleg Wasserman wrote:
The law was passed by 25 members of parliament, most of which come from
religious factions. These people do not represent the majority of the
people.
No, they represent a fraction of the ruling coalition, which has passed
hairier laws in the past,
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
that can actually be a good a argument for a bagatz in the unlikely event
that this idiotic proposal will pass, that can hold off the implementation
of this potential law for a few good months.
On 3/2/07, Shlomo Solomon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't want to get into a debate about porn.
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:
On 3/3/07, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007, Peleg Wasserman wrote:
The law was passed by 25 members of parliament, most of which come from
religious factions. These people do not represent the majority of the
people.
No, they represent a fraction of the ruling coalition,
Are you over 18? Type in your password and see whatever you want.
-Yonah
On 3/3/07, Ori Idan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007, Yonah Russ wrote:
adults. If a parent really want's they're kids looking at porn sites,
they'll give them their password.
Correct. And since they should have their own passwords and email why
not buy them an internet account from an ISP that provides filtered
service.
Yonah Russ wrote:
This law isn't stopping anyone who already legally has the right to
look at porn from looking at porn.
Sure it does! For one thing, porn is not illegal today.
It just requires them to prove that they have the right.
Which is a way of stopping. Saying you can't do X unless you
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007, Yonah Russ wrote:
No, they represent a fraction of the ruling coalition, which has passed
hairier laws in the past, using the well-known quid pro quo arrangements
with other coalition members from other parties. In this country the
words 'don't worry only a few MKs voted
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007, Yonah Russ wrote:
Are you over 18? Type in your password and see whatever you want.
Type your password WHERE in an Internet cafe ? And even if, what stops
one to use https://www.the-cloak.com after that for free ? And one day
after that is blocked
On 3/3/07, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007, Yonah Russ wrote:
adults. If a parent really want's they're kids looking at porn sites,
they'll give them their password.
Correct. And since they should have their own passwords and email why
not buy them an internet account from
On 3/3/07, Shachar Shemesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yonah Russ wrote:
This law isn't stopping anyone who already legally has the right to
look at porn from looking at porn.
Sure it does! For one thing, porn is not illegal today.
I find it hard to believe that an adult is allowed to legally
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007, Yonah Russ wrote:
On 3/3/07, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007, Yonah Russ wrote:
adults. If a parent really want's they're kids looking at porn sites,
they'll give them their password.
Correct. And since they should have their own passwords and email
On 3/3/07, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007, Yonah Russ wrote:
On 3/3/07, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
Actually- I know one of the developers of the Estonian online voting
technology which identifies each voter based on a physical smart card and a
password. which
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007, Yonah Russ wrote:
You are confusing a one to one relationship (surfer to voting center)
with a one to many one (surfer vs. potentially an infinity or URLs).
No- I 'm suggesting a 1-1 relationship of surfer to ISP proxy.
Try to think this through please. You go to an
This completely off-topic thread has gone on far too long. Aside from two or
three posts about possible LINUX issues, I fail to see why we are having this
completely irrelevant discussion about porn, censorship, religion and who
knows what else.
ENOUGH
--
Shlomo Solomon
Yonah Russ wrote:
Since the law is targeted at people under the age of eighteen, I
assume the commission will ask the question: Would I choose to show
that to a 17 year old?
I am assuming you are right, which is exactly the reason I'm so worried.
This is, precisely, the wrong question to ask in
On Sun, 4 Mar 2007, Shlomo Solomon wrote:
This completely off-topic thread has gone on far too long. Aside from two or
three posts about possible LINUX issues, I fail to see why we are having this
completely irrelevant discussion about porn, censorship, religion and who
knows what else.
: [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
This completely off-topic thread has gone on far too long. Aside from two or
three posts about possible LINUX issues, I fail to see why we are having this
completely irrelevant discussion about porn, censorship, religion and who
knows what else.
I disagree. If an MS-based solution is mandated
We (more exactly *you*) are about to join Iran, China and North Korea.
Are you ready ?
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3371412,00.html
Peter P.
=
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word
I don't want to get into a debate about porn. That's for each person to
decide.
BUT, I do think that there are LINUX issues here too. What happens if the law
says you have to have a specific type of content filter and/or a specific way
of identification for those who DO want porn to be
I'm confused... is there any parent that wants their kids to freely and
easily access pornography? Halevai the UN would treat pornography like they
treat nuclear weapons.
-Yonah
On 3/2/07, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We (more exactly *you*) are about to join Iran, China and North Korea.
On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, Yonah Russ wrote:
I'm confused... is there any parent that wants their kids to freely and
easily access pornography? Halevai the UN would treat pornography like they
treat nuclear weapons.
I am confused... is there any adult in this country who wants to be
fingerprinted
On Friday 02 March 2007, Shlomo Solomon wrote:
I don't want to get into a debate about porn. That's for each person to
decide.
BUT, I do think that there are LINUX issues here too. What happens if the
law says you have to have a specific type of content filter and/or a
specific way of
El vie, 02-03-2007 a las 12:44 +0200, Yonah Russ escribió:
I'm confused... is there any parent that wants their kids to freely
and easily access pornography?
What about if they are?...
Halevai the UN would treat pornography like they treat nuclear
weapons.
-Yonah
On 3/2/07, Peter [EMAIL
On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 12:44:32PM +0200, Yonah Russ wrote:
I'm confused... is there any parent that wants their kids to freely and
easily access pornography? Halevai the UN would treat pornography like they
treat nuclear weapons.
Pornography is not the issue.
My 8 year old son likes to go to
* Yonah Russ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [070302 12:54]:
I'm confused... is there any parent that wants their kids to freely and
easily access pornography? Halevai the UN would treat pornography like they
treat nuclear weapons.
I'd rather take care of it myself and let the companies offer such a
service
Yonah Russ wrote:
I'm confused...
Yes, and you are confused because the people behind the law are inducing
their own confusion on you.
is there any parent that wants their kids to freely and easily access
pornography?
First of all, yes. Personally, I see nothing wrong with a teenager
knowing
On 3/2/07, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, Yonah Russ wrote:
I'm confused... is there any parent that wants their kids to freely and
easily access pornography? Halevai the UN would treat pornography like
they
treat nuclear weapons.
I am confused... is there any adult in
On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, Yonah Russ wrote:
I am confused... is there any adult in this country who wants to be
fingerprinted to be able to check his email or chat in an adult chat
group (perhaps looking for a mate, perhaps not using very academic
language all the time - i.e. without resorting to
On 3/2/07, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, Yonah Russ wrote:
I am confused... is there any adult in this country who wants to be
fingerprinted to be able to check his email or chat in an adult chat
group (perhaps looking for a mate, perhaps not using very academic
First of all what do you consider pornography?
Second, why is it the job of the government to tell it's citizens what
is ok for them to access, and let their children see, and what isn't?
While any parent who wants to limit his children's access to the
Internet can do it quite easily, as can be
Curtain so I know more about five
year planned disasters). I thought that I left that behind, but now it
is catching up in the form of the great jerusalem firewall (there was
considerable media censorship back then). I am so thrilled. NOT.
Peter
On 3/2/07, Peleg Wasserman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
First of all what do you consider pornography?
What does that matter? There is a building full of elected officials and
appointed commisions who will decide what is considered pornography after
which an entire system of judges will
(I come from one of the
handicapped countries behind the Iron Curtain so I know more about five
year planned disasters). I thought that I left that behind, but now it
is catching up in the form of the great jerusalem firewall (there was
considerable media censorship back then). I am so thrilled
On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, Yonah Russ wrote:
On 3/2/07, Peleg Wasserman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
First of all what do you consider pornography?
What does that matter? There is a building full of elected officials and
appointed commisions who will decide what is considered pornography after
which
Yonah Russ wrote:
On 3/2/07, *Peter* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
You are of course assuming that the laws are perfect and consistent, and
constant. The laws are made by a few people who think that they are in a
position to judge for many, and who strongly
43 matches
Mail list logo
