I can post it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
The District Court found, however, that no evidence had been presented “as to the percentage of time that blocking and filtering technology is over- or underinclusive.” Id. Moreover, the District Court, as noted above, determined that blocking and filtering software could be at least as effective as COPA, because COPA does not reach “foreign Web sites, noncommercial sites, and . . . [materials available online] via protocols other than http.” Reno II, 31 F. Supp. 2d at 496.(28)
Fn. 28:
(28). The District Court’s findings of fact on which the above conclusions are based are not clearly erroneous. As we recited earlier, the Government did not, and does not, contend that the findings are clearly erroneous. See Reno III, 270 F.3d at 170. It follows that both COPA and blocking and filtering technology are over- and underinclusive in differing ways, and we agree with the District Court’s conclusion that, as a result, such technology may be at least as effective as COPA.
Of course, I hardly need to present this, because the notion that they did present evidence of the efficacy of filters before would mean that they shouldn't need to be hunting up this information now, but of course they didn't and they are. QED.
Is that it then, or do you have a fresh batch of waffles in the oven?
Of course, I hardly need to present this, because the notion that they did present evidence of the efficacy of filters before would mean that they shouldn't need to be hunting up this information now, but of course they didn't and they are. QED. The prospect of an Internet dumbed-down to the "Safe for 13 Year Olds" level (a virtual "child-safe cap" placed on all content), as tragic as it might be (and I am not talking about "Pr0n"!), the loss pales in comparison to the loss of freedom made manifest in the hamfisted "alternative" to filtering for which the government is in the process of creating pro forma "proof" of "need".
That "alternative", of course, is "monitoring" -- and make no mistake, that is what we are looking at. There is a verse in the Old Testament -- Proverbs, I believe -- saying, "Despise not the day of small beginnings." As despicable as this "day of small beginnings" may prove to be, the principle holds true -- something of truly monumental portent will often begin with something small, seemingly innocuous. A few malcontents meeting to argue about the Redcoats, a one-nutted nut doin' his thang in a beer hall... the good, the bad, and the revolting all have one thing in common -- the tiny seed grows into the huge tree.
In this case, the "tree" is (to bastardize Scott McNealy), the "monitor."
And good Lord, what a tree it is! Cameras on every streetcorner (in the UK they are literally going to track every vehicle, everywhere it goes, all the time, and store its movements in a database. OCR will "read" the license plate)... coming soon (already experimented with, with mixed results), "facial recognition", so that people can be "tracked" everywhere they go too. Here, in These United States.
I bastardized Mcnealy, and now I'll quote the bastard (and in so doing reveal why I "honor" him with that salutation): "You have zero privacy anyway; get over it."
I wish I'd said it first, but I'll settle for repeating it: "Orwell was an optimist."