More restrictions - you can't print banned words !

[mhf]

Check this : Canon uniflow printing system that blocks banned words from being printed

[LockBox]

Originally Posted by mhf

Check this : Canon uniflow printing system that blocks banned words from being printed

That has got to be the most absurd thing I have read about in years. There are bits and pieces of Orwell's 1984, Animal Farm and Huxley's Brave New World all rolled into this Canon system. It's not as scary as just....bizarre. What is this world coming to? Really?

[dw426]

Originally Posted by LockBox

That has got to be the most absurd thing I have read about in years. There are bits and pieces of Orwell's 1984, Animal Farm and Huxley's Brave New World all rolled into this Canon system. It's not as scary as just....bizarre. What is this world coming to? Really?

If you don't think anything remotely reminiscent of 1984 is scary, what the heck scares you? Lol. On a more serious note, it's the ease into more control and freedom that this provides that is worrying. Nothing but the will to and the money spending is keeping this from being put into the lowest level consumer versions. Imagine these machines in schools, in libraries, in newspaper and magazine organizations, in your home. Think of a government deciding what words are and aren't banned. You might think of it as a stretch at the moment, but just remember, governments and countries can be changed practically overnight. If you don't think technology like this can cause major problems, I'm not sure what to say.

Ask yourself why there is even such a need for such technology. Why would there truly "need" to be printers that refuse to print banned words. Why is there a "need" to ban words to begin with? The answers to those questions are even scarier than the technology itself.

[chrisretusn]

Well we already have banned words. I can't say them here and I am not talking about the usual TOS type words on the forum. I am surprised it has taken this long.

Originally Posted by dw426

Ask yourself why there is even such a need for such technology. Why would there truly "need" to be printers that refuse to print banned words. Why is there a "need" to ban words to begin with? The answers to those questions are even scarier than the technology itself.

Yes, those are the some of the very questions I asked myself, along with who or what group, organization will deciding what words are banned? Actually it would be pretty easy to come up with a list of who or what. Not that I agree. I don't think any words should be banned, period. This is indeed scary.

[hierophant]

Originally Posted by chrisretusn

Well we already have banned words. I can't say them here and I am not talking about the usual TOS type words on the forum. I am surprised it has taken this long.

I'm not sure what you mean. Discussion of religion and politics -- let alone contentious language -- are rather unacceptable here. Perhaps you're referring to words that would attract unwanted attention IRL. That's why we need anonymity, no?

Originally Posted by chrisretusn

Yes, those are the some of the very questions I asked myself, along with who or what group, organization will deciding what words are banned? Actually it would be pretty easy to come up with a list of who or what. Not that I agree. I don't think any words should be banned, period. This is indeed scary.

Each group has its own banned words, so I presume that this feature will be configurable.

[dw426]

Originally Posted by hierophant

I'm not sure what you mean. Discussion of religion and politics -- let alone contentious language -- are rather unacceptable here. Perhaps you're referring to words that would attract unwanted attention IRL. That's why we need anonymity, no?


Each group has its own banned words, so I presume that this feature will be configurable.

The anti-political stance taken here has always bugged me. You almost can't discuss what we have been discussing without bringing politics into it. The whole reason the privacy loss exists is because of politics. But whatever, I don't own the forum, lol.

[ronjor]

The anti-political stance taken here has always bugged me.

The reason is here. >> http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showp...85&postcount=4

[dw426]

Originally Posted by ronjor

The reason is here. >> http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showp...85&postcount=4

I get that, Ronjor. As I said though, it's very difficult to separate politics from the privacy and security issues we face and discuss when it comes to government actions. Anyway, that was just my thought, not trying to start a pro-politics thread.

[LockBox]

Originally Posted by dw426

I get that, Ronjor. As I said though, it's very difficult to separate politics from the privacy and security issues we face and discuss when it comes to government actions. Anyway, that was just my thought, not trying to start a pro-politics thread.

As it was described to me once - as long as the topics are related to our purpose here, discussion regarding governmental policy is fine. The problem is when certain names, parties, etc. come into the thread. It then becomes partisan politics and that's a no-go at Wilders.

For what it's worth, as for the Canon technology - it scares me too. I was turning a phrase more than anything. It's a bizarre - and scary - technology. It boggles my mind that there's a need for this at all. Period. As dw426 said, the ease in which it could be implemented in consumer products is really scary.

Dw....It sounds like you're almost a card-carrying EFF member! (Just kidding - I love your posts.)

[dw426]

Originally Posted by LockBox

As it was described to me once - as long as the topics are related to our purpose here, discussion regarding governmental policy is fine. The problem is when certain names, parties, etc. come into the thread. It then becomes partisan politics and that's a no-go at Wilders.

For what it's worth, as for the Canon technology - it scares me too. I was turning a phrase more than anything. It's a bizarre - and scary - technology. It boggles my mind that there's a need for this at all. Period. As dw426 said, the ease in which it could be implemented in consumer products is really scary.

Dw....It sounds like you're almost a card-carrying EFF member! (Just kidding - I love your posts.)

Well, but we all know different leaders and government bodies believe differently, act differently and pass different laws. So, really, problems CAN boil down to certain names, parties, etc. There isn't a lot of wiggle room when it comes to these kinds of issues, either certain people are responsible for what happens or they aren't. By the way, I'm not a card carrier, lol. In fact, I don't always agree with the EFF or any advocacy group for that matter.

They have their "hardcore" people like any special interest group does, that shoot down anything and everything they deem interferes with their perfect idea of what privacy and security should be. There has to be some leeway, some middle ground, otherwise you may find yourself with less security and privacy than you'd prefer. That goes for all special interest/advocacy groups, you shouldn't agree with everything they do and say, and follow them like a rat does the pied piper. There are going to be times when these groups are wrong.

[LockBox]

Originally Posted by dw426

Well, but we all know different leaders and government bodies believe differently, act differently and pass different laws. So, really, problems CAN boil down to certain names, parties, etc. There isn't a lot of wiggle room when it comes to these kinds of issues, either certain people are responsible for what happens or they aren't. By the way, I'm not a card carrier, lol. In fact, I don't always agree with the EFF or any advocacy group for that matter.

They have their "hardcore" people like any special interest group does, that shoot down anything and everything they deem interferes with their perfect idea of what privacy and security should be. There has to be some leeway, some middle ground, otherwise you may find yourself with less security and privacy than you'd prefer. That goes for all special interest/advocacy groups, you shouldn't agree with everything they do and say, and follow them like a rat does the pied piper. There are going to be times when these groups are wrong.

I knew you felt that way about EFF, that's why I wrote what I did. I also understand how hard it is to "straddle" the rules regarding political discussion because it is so often hard to discuss m,any of these issues without politics inevitably becoming involved.