 kapilThe Kapil
join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL | If it's to protect the kids... ...it must be good. 
It's not the ISPs responsibility to monitor content...however illegal it may be.
Frankly, I don't understand why AOL and ATT want this monkey on their back! They have no legal obligation to monitor traffic...but they want to. What lawyer let them sign up for additional liability? Idiots!
And before the whackjobs get bent out of shape....just because I'm against filtering does not automatically mean I'm for child porn.
cum hoc ergo propter hoc syndrome much?
Then again, people who make this a crusade aren't really known for correcting logical fallacies, are they?
--
»www.DumbLogic.com |
|
 fuziwuziNot born yesterdayPremium
join:2005-07-01
Atlanta, GA | said by kapil:Then again, people who make this a crusade aren't really known for correcting logical fallacies, are they? So very true. You may even be accused of being "unAmerican", now, as well. 
--
***************
I think computer viruses should count as life. I think it says something about human nature that the only form of life we have created so far is purely destructive. We've created life in our own image.
- Stephen Hawking |
|
|
|
1 edit | reply to kapil
said by kapil:Frankly, I don't understand why AOL and ATT want this monkey on their back! They have no legal obligation to monitor traffic...but they want to. I wouldn't go so far as to say the ISPs "want to" as you say. They were threatened by the state of NY and rather than fight a costly fight and one where the public would back Cuomo, they gave in. Even if they won, it would be a Pyrrhic victory because they would be portrayed by the state as backing child porn.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
| reply to kapil
i believe it's to add to marketing... we just saw a commercial a couple days ago that said something about privacy filters and helping parents monitor their kids internet access with fastaccess or whatever |
|
