Re: More police sticking nose in...
- From: MM <kylix_is@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 16:45:57 +0100
On Wed, 1 Aug 2007 13:59:48 +0100, "Uno-Hoo!"
<Uno-Hoo@NOSPAMbigfootdotcom> wrote:
"Mike_B" <usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:e5Yd3oTm2HsGFwyX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In message <cnu0b3t3b1d9lt2ar1l8ibrctm59pbq92r@xxxxxxx>, Cynic
<cynic_999@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 15:35:43 +0100, "Uno-Hoo!"
<Uno-Hoo@NOSPAMbigfootdotcom> wrote:
Of course they can determine what they're delivering. Like customs,
they
could open the packet.
But whereas it is simple for Google just to *look* at what is being
displayed on their web-sites, the only way that the post office could
determine if they were delivering child porn would be by opening every
package and jiffy bag that came through their system. Clearly totally
unfeasible.
You think it would be simply to view thousands of video clips a day
and figure out whether they depict an illegal act taking place?
I would imagine an enormous number of videos on Youtube depict an act that
is illegal *somewhere*. So not only would they need to be experts in what
is or isn't legal, they would have to know the same things for every
country in which their videos are seen.
Whilst I accept that there are difficulties, there are some items, however,
that are clearly unsuitable for public viewing - whether illegal or not.
Google should be demonstrating that they are a responsible organisation
rather than just saying, "It's not our job to monitor what is put on our
site." *They* created the site and therefore, IMO, they have a
responsibility for monitoring what goes on there.
Complete nonsense. They are the equivalent of the Royal Mail, they
just make the conduit available. The "contract" is between the
originator and the viewer. Also, I take issue with your completely
uniformed (because you won't have seen more than a tiny fraction of
online videos) comment about "clearly unsuitable". Lady Chatterley's
Lover was "clearly unsuitable" in the opinion of village do-gooders
until a court of law decided different and the do-gooders had to shut
the heck up and eat crow. Since then the BBFC passes just about
anything, often with no cuts at all. You just have to realise that you
are an old fuddy-duddy who probably thinks loud music warrants
immediate arrest and that things have moved on a bit since the 1960s.
The videos I have seen so far, and I am only on dial-up so I don't get
to see many, are generally of poor (technical) quality, are only
slightly interesting and are usually a complete waste of time.
MM
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: More police sticking nose in...
- From: Uno-Hoo!
- Re: More police sticking nose in...
- References:
- Re: More police sticking nose in...
- From: Cynic
- Re: More police sticking nose in...
- From: Mike_B
- Re: More police sticking nose in...
- From: Uno-Hoo!
- Re: More police sticking nose in...
- Prev by Date: Re: Parking ticket at a hospital
- Next by Date: Re: More police sticking nose in...
- Previous by thread: Re: More police sticking nose in...
- Next by thread: Re: More police sticking nose in...
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|