[Dshield] new Netsky.b virus - quick analysis (incl. hexdump)
info at 4201.com
Sun Feb 22 15:18:10 GMT 2004
Child pornography is already illegal. So is cannibalism, "snuffings" and pretty much every other example you mention.
Since these laws do not prevent people from doing the illegal things, how are we to assume a "guardian" will prevent it?
I, for one, will always vote against any form of censorship .. and that is what your statement "guardian" really means.
I will gladly do whatever I have to do to protect myself against the evils of the world in exchange for the freedom to do as I please.
How would you insure the integrity of your guardian? Remember, absolute power corrupts ... absolutely.
Sunday, February 22, 2004, 6:50:49 AM, Tony Earnshaw wrote:
> lør, 21.02.2004 kl. 21.02 skrev John Sage:
>> > What is, in fact, the present "evil" content of the Internet
>> > (cannibalistic Germans, child pornographers, snuffings, exhortations
>> > to become suicide martyr bombers, new Nazis, heh - bonzai kittens)
>> > and who is doing anything, lifting a finger, to police it? Don't we
>> > need guardians?
>> You evade my point completely.
> I tried not to.
>> What happens when you, or what you are interested in, meets the
>> current definition of "evil"?
> At what point does the connotation "civilization" cease to exist? What
> do the above contribute to that connotation? How do they help to break
> the connotation down?
>> Will you welcome your guardians, then?
> Yes, long before that point. I'd like to see some guardian action *now*.
> A simple example: Someone needs cash. The someone finds out where some
> pensioner with ready money lives, gains entry to the pensioner's home,
> knocks down the pensioner and steals the cash. Is that acceptable
> behavior? If not, why not? What redress does the pensioner have, and to
> whom does the pensioner turn?
> A parallel exists on the Internet at present, and there is no instance
> to turn to for redress.
More information about the list