Re: More police sticking nose in...
- From: "Uno-Hoo!" <Uno-Hoo@NOSPAMbigfootdotcom>
- Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 11:12:06 +0100
"MM" <kylix_is@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ko34b393s1etcghjdr32llbb8jntoaknvh@xxxxxxxxxx
On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 15:05:33 +0100, "Uno-Hoo!"
<Uno-Hoo@NOSPAMbigfootdotcom> wrote:
"MM" <kylix_is@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:n2a1b3510alp416p4ivjtch8lrkqrch9ln@xxxxxxxxxx
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.
So you claim. But there is a difference. The Royal Mail do not open up
packages and put the contents on display for all to see. They simply
deliver
a package from a to b and, in general, have no knowledge of what they are
delivering beyond the fact that it is an envelope or package of
indeterminate content. If a poster sent kiddy porn to another paedophile,
and the Royal Mail opened it up and then printed the pictures and put them
on display in post offices - would that be acceptable?
What about Royal Mail and postcards? Look, there's one! It shows a
disgusting cartoon by Donald McGill. Oh dear, the kiddies have seen
it. "Mummy, why has that man got a stick in his swimming trunks?" Ya
see? Ya SEE? By the way, talking of sticks, heard George Formby's With
My Little Stick Of Blackpool Rock? I expect you'd find that
objectionable.
You really are struggling to support your POV aren't you?
Kev
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: More police sticking nose in...
- From: MM
- 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...
- From: MM
- Re: More police sticking nose in...
- From: Uno-Hoo!
- Re: More police sticking nose in...
- From: MM
- Re: More police sticking nose in...
- Prev by Date: Re: New TV detector equipment - bluff?
- Next by Date: Re: Smoking ban - smoking near open windows?
- Previous by thread: Re: More police sticking nose in...
- Next by thread: Re: More police sticking nose in...
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
